• RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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?

      • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The wiki article is actually very good. The historical revisionist is just claiming that it says things which it definitely does not.

        • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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.

        • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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