Message from @Valet the Clown
Discord ID: 406671315114786816
Mate there is your answer.
and he had no interest in occupying the British Isles as far as I know. if he had the ability to crush them and remove them from the war, I do not believe he would have hesitated
When the US got in WWI it became a war of ideology Republic vs Monarchy, when it started as a territorial war.
of course the French and British were quick to reframe the public image along similar lines
I will not say there have never been bad kings such as King Louis X but they are far better than Wodrow Wilson for example.
we can trade good examples and bad as much as we want. one of the problems with American politics is that we've given the chief executive to much power. We've made his office more like that of a king's as time has gone on. the difference between a bad president and a bad king is that there are more people to get in the way of a bad president's decision.
I disagree, given than a King had to beg money for his wars while a president doesn't; a King can be controlled if they are unruly, mad, or bloodthirsty more often than a president than names his delusions as "The will of the people"; Kings are able too do much more good given that it is in his benefit to increase the current wealth and future wealth of his state; A president only thinks of the now.
keep in mind that it was not the republics that declared war first in WWI
Of course
it took the US until 1917 to join
But it ceartainly took a bitter turn when it got in, especially when it came to Germany.
of course it did. all that fresh material bolstering Germany's enemies. some 2 million fresh troops sent to the Western front. it's no wonder the civilian government and the military (the Kaiser himself having fled to neutral Holland) agreed to the armistice.
I was talking about the treaty of versailles.
oh, you mean WIlson's 14 points that the French pissed on?
You know what I'm trying to get, don't be coy.
what are you getting at?
What happened after WWI
Germany's economic collapse caused in large part by the reparations, a brief revolutionary period (not in that order), the dissarmament of germany, the eventual rise of the Nazis, what is your point?
Had Germany stayed as it was before WWI had that happened?
are you trying to suggest that they wouldn't be disarmed under the Kaiserreich?
yes. why wouldn't it have? at any rate, the Monarch himself decided to abdicate.
U sure?
they didn't have much choice in the matter. sure, they could have told the allied powers to fuck themselves and continue prosecuting the war, but with the introduction of America and the revolts they were already dealing with, they would have risked going down the same path as Russia.
And then they became degenerates and then natsocs.
well we really have to ask ourselves which is worse, a united German-Russian Communist bloc or what we ended up getting instead.
Neither really are good.
but at least the Soviets and the Nazis expended a ton of their energy kicking the shit out of each other instead of focusing their attention elsewhere.
and let's not forget who funded Lenin's return to Russia from exile.
Who?
Germany
A country is not a person my dude
what good is a king if he does not take responsibility for his country's actions?
No, I'm saying name the person.
I just want to make sure you know.
I can't seem to find a specific person in the history book I have to hand. the most I get is a vague referrence to "German authorities"
Oh well.
Apparently according to historian Richard Pipes, who sources official documentation, the German foreign secretary, Richard von Kühlmann was either the man who came up with the idea or at the very least signed off on it. Additionally, the Germans, according to Eduard Bernstein, continued to send gold to the Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1918. As much as 50million deutsche marks.
I can't seem to find the number, but I'll take your word for it.
meanwhile Turkey is still extorting money from the EU in return for not releasing some 3.5 million refugees into Europe