Birth of the Richthofen Circus?

[bristol scout]

Hi Manfred,

Seeing as how you mentioned it---and sort of left it 'hanging' there...I disagree that "this is not the place to ask why"

'Why' Germany was fighting almost all of the civilised world---and 'how' it went about fighting is germaine to ANY debate about the first world war.

Great Britain and France were Parliamentary democracies, Germany was a militaristic autocracy ruled, superficially by a 'Kaiser' (the very word--like 'Tsar' derived from the latin 'Ceasar' ----who, as we know gave rise to a series of Emperors---and the kaisers Germany wanted an empire--no mistake.

It wanted European hegemony to facilitate further international conquests.

the 'plan' was to 'weaken France to the extent that she could never be a world power again' also to 'push back Russia as far as possible from German borders' Germany itself to become the centre of a 'middle-European economic bloc' The French and Belgian Iron ore fields, ownership of the factories therein, to be 'ceded to Germany.

British trade to be 'excluded from Europe'

Do you really imagine that anyone in the civilised world really cared about the 'resources' of Germany----and should they of?

The very fact, as you say, that Germany was fighting just about everybody speaks volumes for germany's grasp of social, economic and civilised mores.

Indeed--I am tempted to say the 'stupid aggression' was started BY Germany---relentlessly pursued BY Germany for the purpose of European (at least) supremacy---stupid in the sense that obviously something has gone wrong when just about the whole world is in arms against you.
Dave.

[ManfredT]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Hi Manfred,

Do you really imagine that anyone in the civilised world really cared about the 'resources' of Germany----and should they of?

Dave.

Why are you so hatefull that you can't give Germany the status of civilised?

ManfredT

[bristol scout]

I do not consider it in any way, shape or form to not class the Germany of 1914 -18--'civilised' as being "hateful"----what a strange perception!

It's yearning for absolute power over it's neighbours, and those that it falsely percieved as it's rivals (because it suited it's particular brand of 'reality') It's conduct in imposing a war of aggression on Europe and the World---and it's WAY of waging that war of aggression leave little room in 'my philosophy' for accepting the belief that Germany in 1914-18 (and I could extrapolate to a later 'German war') was in ANY way acting---wether it be in it's flagrant disregard for international treaties, it's barbarism to occupied neighbours, or it's Draconian surrender 'terms' to those beaten enemies-----civilised.

Dave.

[ManfredT]

Dave,

I have read all your postings, and the answers too. My English isn't good enough to comment your historic view in a appropriate manner. Let me say you are an idiot as the ancient Greek understood this term.

Germany lost WWI, but Great Britain her Empire. The United States gained world power, and Great Britain ended as the poodle. Is it that?

ManfredT

[bristol scout]

Ah!
And so we quickly get to it Manfred---I am an "idiot'---well, that unwarranted personal attack shows me most clearly that you are not interested in History---unlike your friend Hal---who sometimes starts his posts 'friends of history'.

Now his notion that we are friends is most laudable---yours however, that personal insults are the best way forward are NOT.

Dave---who always considers himself a friend of history.

[ManfredT]

Dave,

have you really awaited another answer?

ManfredT

[bristol scout]

I feel you have no further answer Manfred----and on this occasion I will resist pressing the 'button' and assume your strange little outburst of ridicule was not really very well thought out (I fear it was---but will give you the benefit of the doubt)!

Dave.

[GMU]

It's yearning for absolute power over it's neighbours, and those that it falsely percieved as it's rivals (because it suited it's particular brand of 'reality') It's conduct in imposing a war of aggression on….

….. it's flagrant disregard for international treaties, it's barbarism to occupied neighbours, or it's Draconian surrender 'terms' to those beaten enemies

Such heavy stones for so many fragile glass houses!




.

[crankcase]

Originally Posted by ManfredT

Russ,

I like to learn, but my interest will not change to the 'who shot who' minefield.

Germany fought in WWI against the whole English speaking world (USA, Great Britain, Australia. Canada, India), against the whole French speaking world (France, Belgium, Africa) and the Russian world.

This is not the place to ask why, but a place to think about the resources of Germany.

Did you know that sometimes a Jasta consists of only 4-5 pilots, with patrol for only two hours? The pilots you are missing were not shot down, they have never been with a Jasta.

I like your input, but in my opinion it would be better, if you take more the economic facts into account.

ManfredT

Before we veer way off course into a discussion of war aims and war guilt, I would ask Manfred to expand on his initial point about resources and economy.

Your thoughts seem to be directed at explaining the resource constraints experienced by the German air service (in terms of men and materials) and the influence this had on their aerial strategy/tactics.

I am a bit fuzzy on the connection with the statistics though: if the Brits over-counted victories (unofficially) then I suppose the same German airman would have been downed several times, both "statistically" and later on (in 1918) physically, when he had the benefit of a parachute and could rescue himself to fight another day.

Thank you.
marc

[dirtyshirt]

Ah well.....there goes another promising thread up the Swanee.

Manfred, you might as well give up on this thread as it's filling up with smoke from the personal axes being ground.
We might get the information the thread originally started up about at a later date .. but this one has,. unfortunately, been hijacked.