Germans viewed as agressive and militaristic race in anglosphere, why?

[Starslayer_D]

After spending a few years with this forum, I was wondering why in the earlier half of the last century, and somewhat even to the current time, germany and germans where viewed as utterly militaristic and agressive? A view reflected in statements of e.g. Churchill and Rosevelt and in the Versailles treaty. Where was the root of this? Earlier, during the 1800s, that view was not aparent..
I'm curious, as before ww1 it was not really reflected in the military spending of Germany as compared to the other great powers.

 

[Orcbuster]

Well it dates back to the Prussian officer class in particular and the Prussian military in general who indeed was viewed as strict and militaristic in the extreme even for the time period. That in turn was inherited by Germany after unification.

 

[Mark1878]

After spending a few years with this forum, I was wondering why in the earlier half of the last century, and somewhat even to the current time, germany and germans where viewed as utterly militaristic and agressive? A view reflected in statements of e.g. Churchill and Rosevelt and in the Versailles treaty. Where was the root of this? Earlier, during the 1800s, that view was not aparent..
I'm curious, as before ww1 it was not really reflected in the military spending of Germany as compared to the other great powers.

Well before 1871 there was no Germany. Prussia was a power but much smaller.
In 1866 they became the most powerful bit of Germany by defeating Austria

Then in 1871 they invaded France (Franco-Prussian War) and created the Empire of Germany by crowing Wilhelm in the Palace or Versailles.

Prussia was considered militaristic sine the early 1700s when they created a well drilled army and then in the wars of Austrian Succesion and Seven Years war Frederick the Great made there army the most feared in Europe.

These slivers of information should give hints of what to look for to see the fuller history.

 

[GarethC]

1862 Bismarck becomes chancellor
1864 invade Denmark as Austrian ally
1866 invade Austria
1867 North German Federation absorbs northern Germany under Prussian control
1870 invade France
1871 German Emprire absorbs all German states under Prussian control
1884 establishes protectorate over Togo, Kamerun, German South-West Africa, German New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago
1885 buys Marianas from Spain
1889 Samoan crisis - clash averted after storm damages US, British, German ships in theatre
1890 begins construction of naval base on Heligoland to dispute British control of North Sea
1897 seizes Kiautschou concession in China
1898-9 Samoan Civil War ends with UK loss of influence, division between US and Germany
1898-11 build HSF to second-most powerful navy in the world.
1899 acquires Carolines from Spain
1905 attempts to extend sphere of influence to Morocco
1911 compels French surrender of the Congo under threat of war
1914 invade France. And Belgium. And Russia.

I really am terrible at embedding, so here's a link.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

After spending a few years with this forum, I was wondering why in the earlier half of the last century, and somewhat even to the current time, germany and germans where viewed as utterly militaristic and agressive? A view reflected in statements of e.g. Churchill and Rosevelt and in the Versailles treaty. Where was the root of this? Earlier, during the 1800s, that view was not aparent..
I'm curious, as before ww1 it was not really reflected in the military spending of Germany as compared to the other great powers.

Because they’d just lost the “war to end all wars”. Because it’s easier to blame the losers than yourself or your allies. Because, 25 years later, they’d just lost another war eerily similar to the last with the added horrors of the holocaust. Because, if the other guy is evil, you must be a good guy by extension. Because, if the other guy is too aggressive for their own good, it justifies doing what you want to them.

In short, history is written by the victors.

 

[larpsidekick]

Prussia was described as “not a country with an army but an army with a country” by one of its own ministers in the C18th so it’s not a new point of view in the early C20th.

 

[Antiochus V]

Crude summary

Pre-Unification Prussia had been fairly aggressive and memorably attempted to expand when it felt its neighbours were weak.

As others noted the various wars around German reunification helped build up that reputation, particularly the ones with France and Austria.

I think the fact that Germany was willing to start a Second World War made many see Hitler as a symptom of an underlying militaristic outlook rather than the cause.

 

[ric350]

Maybe this -

Ric350

 

[Anchises]

Because they’d just lost the “war to end all wars”. Because it’s easier to blame the losers than yourself or your allies. Because, 25 years later, they’d just lost another war eerily similar to the last with the added horrors of the holocaust. Because, if the other guy is evil, you must be a good guy by extension. Because, if the other guy is too aggressive for their own good, it justifies doing what you want to them.

In short, history is written by the victors.

disclaimer: Not trying to deny German responsibility for the unforgivable crimes of the Third Reich or for the Imperialistic excesses of the Empire.

It gives meaning to the slaughter in the trenches. "The Germans always were militaristic assholes just look at the Rape of Belgium" sounds much catchier than " Yeah it was all a big conflagration
of imperialistic aggression and paranoia". Then Germany continued to be a threat. Barely anyone talks about Austro-Hungarian war crimes while the crimes in Belgium might have been fueled by a guerilla war (to my knowledge the academic debate is not yet settled).

And continuing to portray Germany as a lost cause prior to WW1 helps glossing over the failings of France and GB. All the blatant imperialistic violations of the self-determination principle in the ToV, the abysmal leadership of Europe up until Hitler rolled into Paris. Oh and it helps glossing over all the closeted sympathies for Fascism that existed in Britain and France. You know like Petain's regime only really started losing legitimacy when the Germans started losing etc...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

After spending a few years with this forum, I was wondering why in the earlier half of the last century, and somewhat even to the current time, germany and germans where viewed as utterly militaristic and agressive? A view reflected in statements of e.g. Churchill and Rosevelt and in the Versailles treaty. Where was the root of this? Earlier, during the 1800s, that view was not aparent..
I'm curious, as before ww1 it was not really reflected in the military spending of Germany as compared to the other great powers.

WW1, Kaiser Wilhelm's bombastic statements, German arrogance and bullying foreign policy, and the Bismarckian wars of unification. That and the general British view of the Germans as their main rival/threat in the early 20th century. Largely it was the British view of the Germans as rivals and the resulting jingoism in the media that drove the perception, which WW1 and later the Nazis and WW2 only reinforced.

 

[David T]

After spending a few years with this forum, I was wondering why in the earlier half of the last century, and somewhat even to the current time, germany and germans where viewed as utterly militaristic and agressive? A view reflected in statements of e.g. Churchill and Rosevelt and in the Versailles treaty. Where was the root of this? Earlier, during the 1800s, that view was not aparent..
I'm curious, as before ww1 it was not really reflected in the military spending of Germany as compared to the other great powers.

"Once all the Germans were warlike and mean. But that couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson in 1918. And they've hardly bothered us since then." Tom Lehrer

I mean, seriously: Of course the French blamed the Prussians (the nucleus of the Kaiserreich) for the Franco-Prussian War. Of course the Allies blamed Germany for the First World War (no doubt an oversimplification, but an understandable one in view of the "blank check" offer of support to Austria-Hungary--and of course anti-German sentiment was exacerbated by the invasion of Belgium). And naturally, the Allies blamed Germany for starting the Second World War (which of course it did--or do you think Poland invaded Germany?...) and then conducting it in a genocidal fashion.

No doubt the Allies, like all other nations, should have considered the beam in their own eyes, but really--after three such wars, how would you expect them to view the Germans? (And it's no answer to say that they should have blamed the last of those wars on Hitler personally rather than Germany; the Fuhrer's popularity with the German people was all too apparent.)

 

[Lenwe]

1862 Bismarck becomes chancellor
1864 invade Denmark as Austrian ally
1866 invade Austria
1867 North German Federation absorbs northern Germany under Prussian control
1870 invade France
1871 German Emprire absorbs all German states under Prussian control
1884 establishes protectorate over Togo, Kamerun, German South-West Africa, German New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago
1885 buys Marianas from Spain
1889 Samoan crisis - clash averted after storm damages US, British, German ships in theatre
1890 begins construction of naval base on Heligoland to dispute British control of North Sea
1897 seizes Kiautschou concession in China
1898-9 Samoan Civil War ends with UK loss of influence, division between US and Germany
1898-11 build HSF to second-most powerful navy in the world.
1899 acquires Carolines from Spain
1905 attempts to extend sphere of influence to Morocco
1911 compels French surrender of the Congo under threat of war
1914 invade France. And Belgium. And Russia.

I really am terrible at embedding, so here's a link.

Well let´s compare with the UK
Conflict
Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864)
Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–1853)
Crimean War (1853–1856)
The National War in Nicaragua (1856–1857)
Second Opium War (1856–1860)
Anglo-Persian War (1856–1857)
Indian Mutiny (1857–1858)
First Taranaki War (Second Māori War) (1860–1861)
Bombardment of Kagoshima -1863
Second Ashanti War (1863–1864)
Invasion of Waikato (Third Māori War) (1863–1866)
Bhutan War (1864–1865)
British Expedition to Abyssinia (1867–1868)
Klang War (Selangor Civil War)
Titokowaru's War (1868–1869)
1868 Expedition to Abyssinia -1868
Te Kooti's War (1868–1872)
Red River Rebellion (1869–1869)
Third Ashanti War (1873–1874)
The 9th Xhosa War (1877–1879)
Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880)
Anglo-Zulu War -1879
‘Urabi Revolt (1879–1882)
First Boer War (1880–1881)
Mahdist War (1884–1889)
Third Anglo-Burmese War -1885
Sikkim Expedition -1888
Anglo-Manipur War -1891
Anglo-Zanzibar War -1896
Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901)
Second Boer War (1899–1902)
Anglo-Aro War (1901–1902)
British expedition to Tibet (1903–1904)
Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
First World War (1914–1918)

And the expenditure link you provide is important with a context

If anything look like the Anglo sphere is the violent one and are projecting on the Germany as the new guy

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Of course the French blamed the Prussians (the nucleus of the Kaiserreich) for the Franco-Prussian War.

You sure about that? The French declared war on Prussia over a unpleasantly worded telegram. Kinda had only themselves to blame for that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Causes

The immediate cause of the war resided in the candidacy of Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a Prussian prince, to the throne of Spain. France feared encirclement by an alliance between Prussia and Spain. The Hohenzollern prince's candidacy was withdrawn under French diplomatic pressure, but Otto von Bismarck goaded the French into declaring war by releasing an altered summary of the Ems Dispatch, a telegram sent by William I rejecting French demands that Prussia never again support a Hohenzollern candidacy. Bismarck's summary, as mistranslated by the French press Havas, made it sound as if the king had treated the French envoy in a demeaning fashion, which inflamed public opinion in France.[14]

The Ems telegram had exactly the effect on French public opinion that Bismarck had intended. "This text produced the effect of a red flag on the Gallic bull", Bismarck later wrote. Gramont, the French foreign minister, declared that he felt "he had just received a slap". The leader of the monarchists in Parliament, Adolphe Thiers, spoke for moderation, arguing that France had won the diplomatic battle and there was no reason for war, but he was drowned out by cries that he was a traitor and a Prussian. Napoleon's new prime minister, Emile Ollivier, declared that France had done all that it could humanly and honorably do to prevent the war, and that he accepted the responsibility "with a light heart." A crowd of 15,000–20,000 people, carrying flags and patriotic banners, marched through the streets of Paris, demanding war. On 19 July 1870 a declaration of war was sent to the Prussian government.[19] The southern German states immediately sided with Prussia.[14]

 

[David T]

You sure about that? The French declared war on Prussia over a unpleasantly worded telegram. Kinda had only themselves to blame for that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Causes

I didn't say Prussia was necessarily to blame, only that it was natural for the French to think so.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I didn't say Prussia was necessarily to blame, only that it was natural for the French to think so.

The right wing French were all about getting revenge on Germany for winning...doesn't seem like much reflection on what got them into the mess in the first place. The Paris Commune meanwhile used the war to try and overthrow the conservative government and seemed to remain embittered toward the right wingers and militarism afterward.

 

[David T]

Well let´s compare with the UK

"The reason why the English anti-militarism disgusts foreign observers is that it ignores the existence of the British Empire. It looks like sheer hypocrisy. After all, the English have absorbed a quarter of the earth and held on to it by means of a huge navy. How dare they then turn round and say that war is wicked?

"It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists. But their dislike of standing armies is a perfectly sound instinct. A navy employs comparatively few people, and it is an external weapon which cannot affect home politics directly. Military dictatorships exist everywhere, but there is no such thing as a naval dictatorship. What English people of nearly all classes loathe from the bottom of their hearts is the swaggering officer type, the jingle of spurs and the crash of boots. Decades before Hitler was ever heard of, the word ‘Prussian’ had much the same significance in England as ‘Nazi’ has today. So deep does this feeling go that for a hundred years past the officers of the British army, in peace time, have always worn civilian clothes when off duty..." http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye

 

[Lenwe]

"The reason why the English anti-militarism disgusts foreign observers is that it ignores the existence of the British Empire. It looks like sheer hypocrisy. After all, the English have absorbed a quarter of the earth and held on to it by means of a huge navy. How dare they then turn round and say that war is wicked?

"It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists. But their dislike of standing armies is a perfectly sound instinct. A navy employs comparatively few people, and it is an external weapon which cannot affect home politics directly. Military dictatorships exist everywhere, but there is no such thing as a naval dictatorship. What English people of nearly all classes loathe from the bottom of their hearts is the swaggering officer type, the jingle of spurs and the crash of boots. Decades before Hitler was ever heard of, the word ‘Prussian’ had much the same significance in England as ‘Nazi’ has today. So deep does this feeling go that for a hundred years past the officers of the British army, in peace time, have always worn civilian clothes when off duty..." http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_eye

All the conflict I quoted, except the Bombardment of Kagoshima, are land Wars, with enormous Armies, like the Taiping Rebellion, Crimean War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Sepoy rebellion, the Second Anglo-Afghan War,
Anglo-Zulu War, the Boer Rebellion. yeah they are sheer hypocrites. And even more when they try to justify their sheer aggressive Stance with "is only a navy"

And for the Record in the 1891 Chilean Civil war the Dictatorship was the Navy creature.

 

[GarethC]

Well let´s compare with the UK
Conflict
Crimean War (1853–1856)
And the expenditure link you provide is important with a context
If anything look like the Anglo sphere is the violent one and are projecting on the Germany as the new guy

Lol yes.
The key difference I think is that between 1815 and 1914, only in the Crimean War did Britain engage in conflict with another Great Power.

That allowed the British narrative to be framed around euphemisms like bringing civilization or the white man's burden, as polite ways of saying stealing all we can carry from poor bastards who haven't developed the Maxim gun yet, particularly if there's a difference in skin tones involved.

In contrast, a lot of Prussia/Germany's activities were about campaigning in Europe against peoples who would normally merit the adjective "civilized" in polite company, you know, nations with Christian clergy and monarchs related to Queen Victoria in some way.

 

[marathag]

And for the Record in the 1891 Chilean Civil war the Dictatorship was the Navy creature.

Admiral Massera was also a leading participant in the '70s Argentine coup.

But you also had Commander Pappas of HNS Velos of the Greek Navy, mutinied against the Junta, that did help lead to its downfall

 

[Lenwe]

Admiral Massera was also a leading participant in the '70s Argentine coup.

But you also had Commander Pappas of HNS Velos of the Greek Navy, mutinied against the Junta, that did help lead to its downfall

So the Navy could easily strike and intervene in the Internal country politic Situation.

We all are in agreement on this?