That’s an article about a military campaign in a war that was already on going. The article even has a section called “outbreak of the war”, in which the actual outbreak of the war is explained (which was not Germany invading Belgium). The article does not in any way support your claim that Germany started world war 1 by invading Belgium.
Why are you linking articles and then misrepresenting what is in those articles?
He is indeed a revisionist or more probably ignorant and stupid from seeing his other comments.
In this case the wiki article looks OK but I stand by my claim about Wikipedia.
It’s useful to look up stuff about flowers, geography, mathematics and other stuff.
But if the subject has the slightest political relevance it can’t be trusted.
Aaah so the “historical context” can only be user to defend Germany. Russia’s invasion doesn’t have an historical conect they’re inherently evil am I right?
You are OC not right, especially since you’re putting words into my mouth I didn’t say.
Clearly mentioning facts that show you are wrong on WW1 Germany is not ‘defending them’.
"Russia’s invasion doesn’t have an historical conect they’re inherently evil "
Again didn’t say anything like that, only that it has nothing to do with WW1
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Belgium_(1914)
If you can find excuses to Germany because of some HiStoRical ConText than so can you for Russia attacking Ukraine
Except the jingoists are right, Russia attacked first.
That’s an article about a military campaign in a war that was already on going. The article even has a section called “outbreak of the war”, in which the actual outbreak of the war is explained (which was not Germany invading Belgium). The article does not in any way support your claim that Germany started world war 1 by invading Belgium.
Why are you linking articles and then misrepresenting what is in those articles?
Are you stupid?
https://www.google.com/search?q=first+battle+of+ww1&oe=utf-8
Bravo, another vague link. Can you explain how what you link to supports your claim?
1 Wikipedia is a garbage source.
2 Russia/Ukraine has nothing to do with it.
The wiki article is actually very good. The historical revisionist is just claiming that it says things which it definitely does not.
He is indeed a revisionist or more probably ignorant and stupid from seeing his other comments.
In this case the wiki article looks OK but I stand by my claim about Wikipedia.
It’s useful to look up stuff about flowers, geography, mathematics and other stuff.
But if the subject has the slightest political relevance it can’t be trusted.
Aaah so the “historical context” can only be user to defend Germany. Russia’s invasion doesn’t have an historical conect they’re inherently evil am I right?
You are OC not right, especially since you’re putting words into my mouth I didn’t say.
Clearly mentioning facts that show you are wrong on WW1 Germany is not ‘defending them’.
"Russia’s invasion doesn’t have an historical conect they’re inherently evil "
Again didn’t say anything like that, only that it has nothing to do with WW1
Shut up idiot I’m driving
hope you crash