Know your history …

[Imperious Leader]

England blockaded Germany in 1915 after Germany announced unrestricted submarine warfare. The Germans didnt have many exports except for trade with Sweden (iron ore). The food prices did raise but its not the cause of the great German naval strife of 1918 which was brought on by poor conditions and mass mutiny. France should have been conquered by what general von Falkenhayn had determined at Verdun, namely the mass carnage of the “meat grinder” totally destroying the French resolve to defend all he national interests. The “leeching” of French morale would have won the war if pursued. Having been winning on the eastern front since 1914 was a great lift on the burden of the Kaiser to fight a real two front war. The war could have been won in 1914 and in 1916 and last chance was 1918. Each time they came up a dollar short.

On another note England was allmost certainly in more dire straights from unrestricted submarine warfare cause by germany. The Zeppelin campaign however costed Germany more money than it destroyed in england.

[Guest]

@Zooey72:

The only thing I regret about that is that we could not stop the communist take over. How czarist Russia would have dealt with Nazi Germany? Dunno.

Czarist or Menshevik?

The reason the Germans attacked Norway was to beat the English from attacking it and using it as a staging ground to than go after Sweeden. The motivation being that Germany got about 1/2 its Iron Ore imported from Neutral Sweeden.

The second is right, the first not really. The iron ore was shipped from Nowegian ports to Germany, and to prevent a blockade / strategical warfare by the Brits it was necessary to control these ports and the nearby air bases.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

It must be noted that Germany orhestrated the release of Lenin from a Swiss prison in order to cause the style of unrest that brought Imperial Russia into communism.

Lenin was brought to Russia after the Menshevik Revolution already had been successful. There was no “Imperial Russia” anymore when Lenin arrived.

Remenber also that Imperial Germany did win that war concluding with the treaty of Brest- Litovsk, mainly because the Czars plans would fail and he would be blamed for these defeats, while having to fight Lenin and trotsky in his own backyard.

The Mensheviks continued the war, after the Czar was deposed in early 1917.
The Bolsheviks took over and ended the war with teh peace of Brest-Litovsk. There is no “stab in the back” thing there as it later was in Germany, the Russian population wanted the peace at any cost.

@Zooey:

I don’t get is how the Germans were being “starved” by the blockade after Russia threw in the towel. I never read much of “scorched earth” in WW1. I figure all the lands the serfs were farming could have fed the Germans even if there was a blockade.

First, if the bad harvest and cold winter was europe-wide. Second, scoreched earth only makes sense if there is something to burn down. Russia was a massively underdevloped country at that time. And their railway gauge was different, making transport by train more difficult… plus you coals to run the trains and food to let the miners get the coal out … if you lack one, it is hard to kick-start it…
and of course, you want this to happen in … like weeks … i guess it would have worked … after about half a year.

@IL:

France should have been conquered by what general von Falkenhayn had determined at Verdun, namely the mass carnage of the “meat grinder” totally destroying the French resolve to defend all he national interests. The “leeching” of French morale would have won the war if pursued.

It did work… 25 years later in a way… The French “gave up” so easily also because they had suffered so much in the meat grinder and had a lack of male population.
But it is of course much easier to call all French cowards from the start on and ignore the story before it (that’s directed at some general US’an sentiments that pop up here more often than not ).

[Imperious Leader]

Lenin was brought to Russia after the Menshevik Revolution already had been successful. There was no “Imperial Russia” anymore when Lenin arrived.

I am sorry but this is incorrect!

The Mensheviks were basically another political organization that came before the Bolsheviks. This party which competed in elections was an unmitigated failure and the Bolsheviks were born out of this disatisfaction and began to compete with the Mensheviks for power. In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins’ Bolsheviks seized power in 1918. Your “menshevik” thing was way back in History long before Lenin. Lenin was the catalist and organizing force to push the Bolsheviks over the top. Thats exactly why the brilliant Germans saw this opportunity to push the allready problematic Tsarist regime.

As for the French deal… They fought well but not without help of another northen neighbor (england)…eastern allies (russia)… and western allies (america)… and southern allies (Italy)… When put to the test alone against our germans they fall every time. Just look at the war they also started in 1870. Just chaos!
To call them cowards is not correct, but they had no national resolve to finish out whatever they start. You may call them “pragmatic” but when “push comes to shove” they allways have backed down. Lets put it this way: they fight well untill they see red blood they run!

[Zooey72]

I saw a thing on the History channel that backs up what you said about the lack of French resolve. Mostly old German soldiers who all said the same thing. They fought hard at first, but when they started running they did not stop. And that they would fight, but only enough so as not to be considered cowards… and than quickly gave up. In contrast, the captured English soldiers at Dunkirk (whom the Germans had a great deal of respect for, they stayed behind so others could escape) marched to the POW camps singing god save the king.

As far as the WW1 thing Falk, I heard that one. But it doesn’t sit right with me. According to that logic than the Russians could not have fed thier own people/army because of logistics. The weather makes a bit more sense, but still, the vast population that did not starve during the harvest shows that there was food there to be had. And don’t forget, there is the baltic which could have been used for shipping. Also, Railways were being built before the war by the french/british (big reason why Germany attacked).

[Zooey72]

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

The only thing I regret about that is that we could not stop the communist take over. How czarist Russia would have dealt with Nazi Germany? Dunno.

Czarist or Menshevik?

The reason the Germans attacked Norway was to beat the English from attacking it and using it as a staging ground to than go after Sweeden. The motivation being that Germany got about 1/2 its Iron Ore imported from Neutral Sweeden.

The second is right, the first not really. The iron ore was shipped from Nowegian ports to Germany, and to prevent a blockade / strategical warfare by the Brits it was necessary to control these ports and the nearby air bases.

Not sure what part you are saying isn’t right. The english would not have dared going into the baltic with its navy, sitting ducks to the German airforce. Even w/o ANY shipping at all… the Russians prob. would have shipped it to Germany (they did supply them until june 22). It would take a while for me to find the refrences on this whole thing, but it was made quite clear by English documents that the goal of a Northern landing was to cut off German Iron/ore imports by using Norway as a staging point to attack Sweeden. I can’t imagine them cutting the Germans off any other way. IMO, 2 quick victories over Norway, than Sweeden would have been the only way to get the desired effect. They didn’t even have to hold either country. Once they had the mines they could have blown it all to hell, than ran back to England and wait for Germany to implode because it could not feed its war machine.

Either way, the point still is that Britian was looking to attack at least one Neutral country. Kinda taking a page from Hitlers book.

More WW2 brain candy. After the V2s started coming down in force Churchill almost gave the order to put chemical weapons in the bombing raids over Germany (in retaliation). Roosevelt told him not to because the Germans had vastly more, and better chemical weapons and that they had an unstopable delivery system. This convinced Churchill not to do it. Not the obvious moral reason not to bomb civilians with chemical weapons. He almost sunk lower than Hitler in this reguard because till the bloody end Germany never utilized its chemical weapons (and they had some nasty ones, make mustard gas look like a skin rash)

[Imperious Leader]

Either way, the point still is that Britian was looking to attack at least one Neutral country. Kinda taking a page from Hitlers book.

The second world war is full of examples of Allies invading neutrals.

FDR ordered that 25,000 troops occupy the Azores which were controled by portugal.

the English attacked Iraq, which had a somewhat pro-axis government

The English attacked Dakar which was Vichy French

just a few examples… This preemtive invasion idea works if you can pull it off.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

I am sorry but this is incorrect!

…In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins’ Bolsheviks seized power in 1918. Your “menshevik” thing was way back in History long before Lenin. … Thats exactly why the brilliant Germans saw this opportunity to push the allready problematic Tsarist regime.

sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917

February 1917:
Revolution in Russia leads to the adication of the Tsar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution

After the revolution of 1917, most Mensheviks supported the war effort under the slogan “defence of the revolution”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensheviks

April 1917:
Lenins returns to Russia from his exile
(He had to flee to Finland due to his fight against he liberal government in July. THe government which continued the fight and which is the side the US expidition fought on).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

Novemer 1917:
The October Reovulution, or Soviet Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

So, i was a bit too relaxed with my labeling of the mensheviks .
You said …“In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins’ Bolsheviks seized power in 1918. Your “menshevik” thing was way back in History long before Lenin.”
So, apart from 1918 being 1917, you yourself should have noticed the following contradiction:
How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?
And of course: The Imperial Regime was history “long before” Lenin was released.

[Guest]

@Zooey72:

As far as the WW1 thing Falk, I heard that one. But it doesn’t sit right with me. According to that logic than the Russians could not have fed thier own people/army because of logistics. The weather makes a bit more sense, but still, the vast population that did not starve during the harvest shows that there was food there to be had. And don’t forget, there is the baltic which could have been used for shipping. Also, Railways were being built before the war by the french/british (big reason why Germany attacked).

(1) Why was there a revolution in Russia ??? If you answer that, you will see why there was nothing to be plundered for the Germans.

(2) Where did you get the “big reason why Germany attacked” from? Look up “von Schlieffen” plan to see why the Germans declared war.

(3) In the vast majority the railways were built /subsidized by the russian imperial government.

[Imperious Leader]

How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?
And of course: The Imperial Regime was history “long before” Lenin was released.

They began in the early part of the 20th century and the Bolsheviks were born from this parent political party because because many people didnt want to have anything to do with Menshevism. Throughout the years they were in direct competition. When the Bolsheviks led by lenin finally push their way into power afer two revolutions they consolidated their power and push out the oppositional parties. In 1921 the Mensheviks were banned . Thats it its not difficult!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/B/Bolshevi.asp

[Guest]

You did not answer my question, you just restated the undisputed facts.

How can something be history long before an event when they are banned after that event?
That is what you said and it still is illogical. Just admit that, and i will be silent on that.

[Imperious Leader]

That is what you said and it still is illogical

Explain this “what” i said?

[Guest]

@F_alk:

@Imperious:

…In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins’ Bolsheviks seized power in 1918. Your “menshevik” thing was way back in History long before Lenin. … Thats exactly why the brilliant Germans saw this opportunity to push the allready problematic Tsarist regime.

@Imperious:

How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?
And of course: The Imperial Regime was history “long before” Lenin was released.

[Imperious Leader]

How can somethinf that was banned after the “Lenin’s Bolsheviks” took the power be history “long before Lenin” ?

..In fact they were banned in 1921 after Lenins' Bolsheviks seized power in 1918\. Your "menshevik" thing was way back in History long before Lenin. ... Thats exactly why the brilliant Germans saw this opportunity to push the allready problematic Tsarist regime.

menshevik party started around 1900 pushing some reforms , while many of its members became dissatisfied with some of the ideas and broke off to form their own party called the Bolsheviks. Eventually these Bolsheviks came to power and banned all the other parties including menshevik party in 1921. My comment was you confused Lenin as a menshevik but he wasnt , he was Bolshevik. That party existed before the Bolsheviks started and got banned after they got into power. Thats your answer.

If Lenin was not released from a Swiss prison, its quite certain the revolution would not have suceeded w/o its charasmatic leader. So thats exactly why the Kaiser allowed it to occur … so he could destroy his enemy from within. Thats a brilliant concept.