Didn't they end their rivalry earlier after the Crimean war?

They ended mutual hatred.
Rivalry persisted to 1914 but the more Germany grew, the more the rivalry got friendly.

France had a large colonial empire and the British were somewhat threatened by it, while Germany had a sausage factory in Tanganyika. I think they saw Germany capable of taking on the Royal navy more than France and Germany being capable of forcing France to cede colonial territory to further threaten Britain.
I may contradict myself here but I hope you got the idea.

?

I tend to agree with you, except on the world dominance. No nation has ever claimed to rule the world.

And about WW1, the panslavisme was the true origin of it (I have also documents about that).

Panslavism.
Do tell.
I'm a slav and I really want to hear about his one.

Unofficially you could say that the rivalry ended after the Napoleonic wars, but it wasn't put on to paper until the signing of the Entente Cordiale in 1904. The Cordiale probably would have been signed earlier but we were too busy arguing over who got what in Africa, we did dabble briefly with the idea of joining the Triple Alliance with Germany but in the end sided with France.
Then, of course there was the Russio-Japanese war which involved an ally from both France and Britain going to war with the other, which should have resulted in a war between France and Britain, but both of them decided that such a war would just strengthen Germany and so signed the Entente Cordiale to make sure that such a thing did not happen.

OK, give me your mail adress, and I will send you the documents (in french).

Or maybe should I make them public ? Oh, Sailor Steve, I think we need another thread, haha !

Make them public. In English.

Tell me, would you consider the atrocites committed at Oradour-sur-Glane in June 44 to be a part of post-war propaganda?

Let me first focus on the thread's subject : the origins and responsibilities of WWII.

Absolutely.
An investigation was also carried out on this point.

The origins of World War I are directly relevant to World War II. I don't think this is off-topic.

I'd also like to know how Pan-Slavism can be responsible for the First World War while Germany's aggressive pursuit of Pan-Germanism was somehow not a factor in the start of the Second.

Then you're obviously out of kilter with those primary authorities which are far more knowledgeable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradou...Glane_massacre

There are many sources out there should your conscience ever allow you to open your eyes and mind and enter the reality of the actual real world.

I think it's the contrary. ;)

As I like to say : how the winners have treated Germany in 1918 was dismal and shameful. But that was even worse in 1945.

History is written by the winners, not by the losers. So the truth has to be established, and we have to work on historical facts and evidence. And sorry, the official historians HAVEN'T DONE THEIR JOB. Historians who are doing their job don't have the right to speak, and they are persecuted. Why ? Because it's always a lie that needs to be protected. The truth is sufficient unto itself.

About Oradour-sur-Glane, that's perfectly right that there was a human tragedy here. And no one disputes. But this is how events unfolded that was completely mystified by the French resistance. In particular, the death of women and children can't be attributed to the Germans.

But again, this is off-topic.