The First World War

[Sulla the Dictator]

This subject doesn't get as much attention on these boards as it deserves, even though one could say with a fair amount of accuracy that a large number of the events which shaped the 20th century can trace their origins to the First World War.

I have a great deal more sympathy for the Germans in WWI than I'm known for having for them in the second. :p

However, there are some things which strike me as a bit absurd. Why has there been an effort over the past twenty years to absolve Germany of any responsibility for the conflict? It was the German blank check to the Austrians which turned what would have been the Third Balkan War into the first world war.

Also, in light of the harshness of German treaties with Eastern nations, what legitimacy is there to the indignation regarding Versailles?

I'm also curious what some of you Germanophiles think of Wilhelm II at the helm of the German state. :p

[Thomas777]

This subject doesn't get as much attention on these boards as it deserves, even though one could say with a fair amount of accuracy that a large number of the events which shaped the 20th century can trace their origins to the First World War.

I have a great deal more sympathy for the Germans in WWI than I'm known for having for them in the second. :p

However, there are some things which strike me as a bit absurd. Why has there been an effort over the past twenty years to absolve Germany of any responsibility for the conflict? It was the German blank check to the Austrians which turned what would have been the Third Balkan War into the first world war.

Also, in light of the harshness of German treaties with Eastern nations, what legitimacy is there to the indignation regarding Versailles?

I'm also curious what some of you Germanophiles think of Wilhelm II at the helm of the German state. :p

Well, I'm no expert on WWI.

However, I must disagree that there has been an effort underway to completely absolve the Germans over the past 20 years...rather, I think treatment of the conflict has become somewhat more balanced by the academy.

As you know, WWI had very complicated causes...and the Anglo-Wilsonian explanation of the Great War being caused solely and completely by "German aggression" is really pretty contrived and absurd.

The fact is that the UK was terribly concerned about Germany's rising power on the Continent, as well as her imperial aspirations and challenge to England's maritime supremacy. I do not think it is irresponsable to suggest that the British Empire was spoiling for a fight with Germany for many decades prior to 1914.

Furthermore, the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian brethren had (and still have) legitimate strategic interests in the Balkans...and virulent Slavic nationalism was a pretty clear and present danger to those interests.

I think that temporal distance from the conflict has allowed a little bit of clarity to come into WWI scholarship.

Finally, I think in America, people like to explain away the Third Reich and WWII in the very simplistic platitude of: "Germany was poor and went berserk". This platitude is premised on the notion that Versailles was crippling and caused the rise of NSDAP. That really is not a well thought out theory, but the Establishment likes to teach that to schoolkids.

That is my .02

[Sulla the Dictator]

As you know, WWI had very complicated causes...and the Anglo-Wilsonian explanation of the Great War being caused solely and completely by "German aggression" is really pretty contrived and absurd.


Its a simplistic explanation, but its not inaccurate to describe German aggression as one of the primary movers in the conflict.

The Germans were playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship. And the result wasn't at all unpredictable. In fact, Germany's unqualified support for Austro-Hungary was likely aimed at preventative war with Russia in the first place.


The fact is that the UK was terribly concerned about Germany's rising power on the Continent, as well as her imperial aspirations and challenge to England's maritime supremacy. I do not think it is irresponsable to suggest that the British Empire was spoiling for a fight with Germany for many decades prior to 1914.


The Germans created their High Seas Fleet and assumed many of its colonial possessions in order to threaten Britain. The British were right to be concerned.


Furthermore, the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian brethren had (and still have) legitimate strategic interests in the Balkans...and virulent Slavic nationalism was a pretty clear and present danger to those interests.


The Russians also had legitimate strategic interests in the Balkans. And Austro-Hungary only had to fear 'virulent Slavic nationalism' in a domestic sense, not a foreign one. Austria's war against the Serbs was born of their instability as a nation.


Finally, I think in America, people like to explain away the Third Reich and WWII in the very simplistic platitude of: "Germany was poor and went berserk". This platitude is premised on the notion that Versailles was crippling and caused the rise of NSDAP.


Actually this sounds more like a modern German explanation for their behaviour than anything else. :p

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The Germans created their High Seas Fleet and assumed many of its colonial possessions in order to threaten Britain. The British were right to be concerned.

What should Germany have done instead to grow like her neighbors France and the UK? Does a nation not have the right to seek the betterment of its population and increase their exportations? I guess my the same logic Elizabethan activities on sea during the XVI Century should not have been made since that broght them war with Spain for decades, right? Whatever..

[Petr]

What basically made First World War possible was Wilhelm II's abandonment of alliance with Russia (which Bismarck had cultivated) This was because Russia's pan-Slavist ambitions in the Balkans were in fundamental conflict with Austria-Hungary, and instead of adopting an "Anschluss" idea and joining Russians in ending this artificial empire, Wilhelmian Germany chained itself to the sinking Habsburg ship.

This drove Russia to the arms of France and put Germans into a two-front situation.


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

What should Germany have done instead to grow like her neighbors France and the UK? Does a nation not have the right to seek the betterment of its population and increase their exportations?


The British didn't have a problem with the Germans growing. They had a problem with the Germans growing as they threatened Britain. France was a major power and yet they didn't need to rival the British fleet.

Considering how poorly it performed, the Germans didn't need that fleet either. It was solely to provoke the British.


I guess my the same logic Elizabethan activities on sea during the XVI Century should not have been made since that broght them war with Spain for decades, right? Whatever..

The difference was that the English could defeat the Spanish....and did. Another difference was that England was seeking to develop colonies and profitable trading outposts, not stick its finger in the eye of Spain.

[OVERWATCH]

The difference was that the English could defeat the Spanish....and did. Another difference was that England was seeking to develop colonies and profitable trading outposts, not stick its finger in the eye of Spain.

You are aware of Sir Francis Drake's piracy against the Spanish, right?

England miraculously averted imminent disaster from the overwhelmingly powerful Spanish Armada, due in no small part by the [unknown]effects of the gulf stream, if that wasn't an English gamble, then I don't know what it was...

[Felix the Cat]

The German fleet was a threat, but an acceptable one so long as it was based across the North Sea at Wilhelmshaven

But if moved to Antwerp it would have become a deadly menace to British trade and security

Why did Germany invade Belgium in 1914?

[Petr]

The difference was that the English could defeat the Spanish....and did. Another difference was that England was seeking to develop colonies and profitable trading outposts, not stick its finger in the eye of Spain.
And there also was not cultural rivalry (a proper cause for war) between England and Germany whereas there had been a fierce religious conflict between England and Spain.


Petr

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The British didn't have a problem with the Germans growing.

Really? Recall the "Made in Germany" and why and where it came from?

They had a problem with the Germans growing as they threatened Britain.

How did Germany actually threaten Britain? I´m really interested

France was a major power and yet they didn't need to rival the British fleet.

Would you think Britain would have attacked France if she had made a more impressive naval build up? And why do othe nations have to ask permision as to wether they might grow?

Considering how poorly it performed, the Germans didn't need that fleet either. It was solely to provoke the British.

No, they did not need it, it was an Imperial thing to do, much like the Japs also build their fleet to get some respect out in that global colonial game.

The difference was that the English could defeat the Spanish....and did.

So, if Germany would have beaten the Brits then everything would have been fine in your eyes? Good to see you so pragmatic Sulla. The outright thivery the Brits did on Spanish colonies must be also ok then.

Another difference was that England was seeking to develop colonies and profitable trading outposts, not stick its finger in the eye of Spain.

Much like Germany actually. Any Colonial Empire worth a dime had to have a high seas fleet. Britain not enjoying Germany building theirs does not make her right.

[Hakluyt]

Really? Recall the "Made in Germany" and why and where it came from?
I've always had it that German imports were very popular in Britain, and by the 1910's they were importing more from Germany than from the Empire collectively - it wasn't until the Reich became overtly antagonistic that they became stigmatised (and only marginally so really)

[Petr]

No, they did not need it, it was an Imperial thing to do, much like the Japs also build their fleet to get some respect out in that global colonial game.
Japan was an island nation like Britain, Germany was a continental power and should have remained that way without trying to acquire third-world colonies that ultimately sucked energy and resources out of Britain.


Petr

[Kodos]

1. America took the wrong side in the 1st world war, the results speak for themselves.

2. The Russians IMHO bear the primary responsibility for the conflict as they declared war over an internal affair of the Austro Hungarian empire( and yes invading a rebellious vassal state is an internal affair).

3. The French bear the main responsibility for escalating it as they were waiting for any opprutunity to gang up on Germany( when Bismarck was actually quite merciful to them given the totality of their defeat in the Franco Prussian war and the fact that Prussia waged it without allies).

Now Kaiser Wilhelm did make huge geopolitical mistakes which brought in the British( who were so closely allied with Prussia historically they had given them a pass on their usual gang up on the dominant continental power MO up to this point), building the fleet, siding with the Boers, and aqquiring colonies. Also staying too close to the Hapsburg and alienating Russia( though they had more reason to do this then building a fleet). Basically I agree with Petr here.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Really? Recall the "Made in Germany" and why and where it came from?


Economic rivals are not military rivals. In fact, for the latter half of the 19th century it wouldn't be inaccurate to describe Britain and the United States as economic rivals.


How did Germany actually threaten Britain? I´m really interested


Britain was an island nation and naval power, Germany was a Continental nation and a land power. The rapid expansion of its navy could only have one true objective, to threaten the British lifeline of imports from abroad.


Would you think Britain would have attacked France if she had made a more impressive naval build up?


Britain didn't 'attack Germany' because of its rapid naval expansion. Britain aligned itself with France because of the threat of the German navy.


And why do othe nations have to ask permision as to wether they might grow?


Thats a good question. Why did Germany feel the need to curb Russian growth after the reforms of 1905, and do so by declaring war on them?


No, they did not need it, it was an Imperial thing to do, much like the Japs also build their fleet to get some respect out in that global colonial game.


The Japanese DID need their fleet, just as Britain did. Though the Japanese used their fleet in the way Germany used its army, both institutions served as the primary vehicle for promoting their interests and defending their important trade routes.

The Germans did not particularly need to project power into Southeast Africa or Cameroon with the number of ships it had. And most of its Pacific colonies were to support its navy, not the other way around.


So, if Germany would have beaten the Brits then everything would have been fine in your eyes?


No.


The outright thivery the Brits did on Spanish colonies must be also ok then.


The Spanish are only outdone by the Portugese and Belgians in their colonial mismanagement. The British did Europe a favor by removing the embarassment. :p


Much like Germany actually.


Not at all. German colonies were more of a status symbol than anything else.


Any Colonial Empire worth a dime had to have a high seas fleet.


The Germans weren't a Colonial Empire worth a dime. They had colonies because the British and French had colonies. And Wilhelm II wasn't at all relucant to trade their "Colonial Empire" for changes in their European border. They meant very little to Germany.

Of these the colonial was the least significant, and it roused little tension with the world's largest Empire, Britain. By 1914, the German colonies attracted one in a thousand of Germany's emigrants, absorbed 3.8 percent of Germany's overseas investment, and accounted for 0.5 percent of its overseas trade.

The First World War
Page 37
Hew Strachan



Britain not enjoying Germany building theirs does not make her right.

The Germans built their fleet to pressure Britain. This only pushed Britain further away from Germany. Britain already had relationships with Russia and France on matters unrelated to Germany. German provokations only made those foreign agreements more European in their implications.

[Sulla the Dictator]

What basically made First World War possible was Wilhelm II's abandonment of alliance with Russia (which Bismarck had cultivated) This was because Russia's pan-Slavist ambitions in the Balkans were in fundamental conflict with Austria-Hungary, and instead of adopting an "Anschluss" idea and joining Russians in ending this artificial empire, Wilhelmian Germany chained itself to the sinking Habsburg ship.

This drove Russia to the arms of France and put Germans into a two-front situation.


Absolutely correct. And instead of letting the Austrians recieve the pasting they richly deserved for their incompetance, the Germans saw an opportunity to curtail Russian growth by beating them in a quick war in much the same way the Austrians were seeking to curb Serbian growth.

[Kodos]

Absolutely correct. And instead of letting the Austrians recieved the pasting they richly deserved for their incompetance, the Germans saw an opportunity to curtail Russian growth by beating them in a quick war in much the same way the Austrians were seeking to curb Serbian growth.

Hitler concieved of a quick war against Russia, the military big shots of the 2nd Reich had no such delusions( against France yes but to be fair only the British saved the French).

[Sulla the Dictator]

Hitler concieved of a quick war against Russia, the military big shots of the 2nd Reich had no such delusions( against France yes but to be fair only the British saved the French).

The German High Command hoped that they could enter a war with Russia without French and English declarations, thus shattering the Triple Entente without fighting all three members.

And in such an event, they were certainly planning on a quick campaign in Poland and the Baltic while Austria entered Poland from the South and threatened the Ukraine.

[Felix the Cat]

What basically made First World War possible was Wilhelm II's abandonment of alliance with Russia (which Bismarck had cultivated) This was because Russia's pan-Slavist ambitions in the Balkans were in fundamental conflict with Austria-Hungary, and instead of adopting an "Anschluss" idea and joining Russians in ending this artificial empire, Wilhelmian Germany chained itself to the sinking Habsburg ship.
You're in effect asking the Germans to make themselves Russian vassals here

Russia was already formidable, and would have become unmanagebly moreso if allowed to take control of the other Slavic states

She would surely also have made another attempt to dismantle the Turkish empire

How big should Russia have been allowed to grow?

[Sulla the Dictator]

1. America took the wrong side in the 1st world war, the results speak for themselves.


It might be true that the world would have been better off with the Germans having won WWI, but I'm not convinced thats true. In any case, the Germans didn't give us much choice about our entry into WWI, and thats their fault as well.


2. The Russians IMHO bear the primary responsibility for the conflict as they declared war over an internal affair of the Austro Hungarian empire( and yes invading a rebellious vassal state is an internal affair).


Umm...how was Serbia a 'rebellious vassal state'?


3. The French bear the main responsibility for escalating it as they were waiting for any opprutunity to gang up on Germany


France isn't Germany's punching bag. They had every right to prevent a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war by establishing protective alliances to deter German invasion.


( when Bismarck was actually quite merciful to them given the totality of their defeat in the Franco Prussian war and the fact that Prussia waged it without allies).


LOL

[Sulla the Dictator]

Russia was already formidable, and would have become unmanagebly moreso if allowed to take control of the other Slavic states


But that would have never happened. The talk in the Balkans was for a South Slav state, separate from Russia.

[Felix the Cat]

Hm. Well, I can sympathize with the Germans who looked nervously eastward a century ago, and decided to huddle together for mutual protection.

Personally, I think Bismarck should have accepted the friendship offered by France in the 1860s, and not been so obstinately determined to settle old scores with the Bonaparte family...

[Jimbo Gomez]

The Spanish are only outdone by the Portugese and Belgians in their colonial mismanagement.

How so? Belgium's industrial growth (before WW1 it was among the 5 biggest industrial powers worldwide!) was built on the Congo colony. Belgium made excellent use of the Congo. Spain on the other hand got almost nothing out of its colonies.

[Sulla the Dictator]

How so? Belgium's industrial growth (before WW1 it was among the 5 biggest industrial powers worldwide!) was built on the Congo colony. Belgium made excellent use of the Congo. Spain on the other hand got almost nothing out of its colonies.

I was actually referring to the Congo Free State, which was a embarassment. Belgium had to be the only nation in Europe which had agreements with actual slavers.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I was actually referring to the Congo Free State, which was a embarassment. Belgium had to be the only nation in Europe which had agreements with actual slavers.

The Congo Free State was NOT a belgian colony, no more than a villa in France owned by GW Bush would be American territory.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The Congo Free State was NOT a belgian colony, no more than a villa in France owned by GW Bush would be American territory.

Leopold was the king of Belgium, and the men running the Congo were Belgians.

[Jimbo Gomez]

So what if he was the king? It was his private property. His job as king had nothing to do with this. Many of the people in his service were foreigners too.

[Sulla the Dictator]

So what if he was the king? It was his private property. His job as king had nothing to do with this. Many of the people in his service were foreigners too.

Leopold took personal control of the Congo because the Belgian parliament didn't want it. The transfer from Leopold to Belgium was an administrative transfer.

[Felix the Cat]

So what if he was the king? It was his private property. His job as king had nothing to do with this. Many of the people in his service were foreigners too.
Including one extraordinary individual named Henry Morton Stanley

You weren't named in his honor, perchance?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Heh. No, I wasn't.

A few posts are gone from this thread. I told Sulla he doesn't know squat about the Congo, he copped out and said he wanted to go back to discussing WW1.

[brigadier Biggles]

Why did Germany invade Belgium in 1914?

it was the rear "hook" of the Schlieffen plan the German plan of attack which was to attack the low countries to get to northern France thus bypassing the main French defences north of Switzerland and envelop the French armies there, only problem was Belgium had a pact with Britain..

googling bought up this - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWschlieffenP.htm

[Sulla the Dictator]

A few posts are gone from this thread. I told Sulla he doesn't know squat about the Congo, he copped out and said he wanted to go back to discussing WW1.

LOL "Copped out".

[brigadier Biggles]

LOL "Copped out".

whats so funny its widely used slang here at least and ive seen it used by the media a few times.

[sainte-marthe]

2. The Russians IMHO bear the primary responsibility for the conflict as they declared war over an internal affair of the Austro Hungarian empire( and yes invading a rebellious vassal state is an internal affair).





Serbia wasn't a "vassal" state, Weikel.

Serbs living in the lands of the Dual Monarchy are another matter, but at the time everyone agreed that the demands they made of Serbia were extraordinary.

The fault is more on the shoulders of Austrian foreign minister Von Berchtold, who was dishonest with the kaiser in making the likelihood of war appear to small. He essentially had the Germans thinking they were supporting Austria over a war that wasn't going to happen.

Sulla, nice to see that you haven't lost your arrogance.:p

[Sulla the Dictator]

The fault is more on the shoulders of Austrian foreign minister Von Berchtold, who was dishonest with the kaiser in making the likelihood of war appear to small. He essentially had the Germans thinking they were supporting Austria over a war that wasn't going to happen.


The Austrians, particularly Conrad, were quite keen on fighting the Serbs. They knew that THAT war was going to happen. And the Germans thought it pretty likely too. They saw it as a way of preventative war against the Russians.


Sulla, nice to see that you haven't lost your arrogance.:p

:p

[A. Radek]

This subject doesn't get as much attention on these boards as it deserves, even though one could say with a fair amount of accuracy that a large number of the events which shaped the 20th century can trace their origins to the First World War.

True. This would be an excellent topic for a decent discussion.

I have a great deal more sympathy for the Germans in WWI than I'm known for having for them in the second.

Well, there's no accounting for taste ...

Seriously, Why?

However, there are some things which strike me as a bit absurd. Why has there been an effort over the past twenty years to absolve Germany of any responsibility for the conflict? It was the German blank check to the Austrians which turned what would have been the Third Balkan War into the first world war.

I wasn't aware there was. In any case, two recent books on the topic of WW I have pretty much buried any chance to absolve Germany of responsibility for it.

Also, in light of the harshness of German treaties with Eastern nations, what legitimacy is there to the indignation regarding Versailles?

Absolutely none. They came away from Versailles in far better shape than they deserved. They fucked up their own domestic political situation all by themselves in the aftermath.

I'm also curious what some of you Germanophiles think of Wilhelm II at the helm of the German state.

Me too ... I like enjoy comedy posts.

Why did Germany invade Belgium in 1914?

To avoid going through the French fortresses by attacking around the French right flank.

Germany was well aware of the treaty obligations with Russia on all sides, they weren't secrets.

The French and British maintained a defensive stance throughout the prelude to war, both diplomatically and militarily. Germany was ultimately aiming at going to war with France and her allies. They took a calculated risk on a quick victory over France, and lost. The motivation was Germany had calculated they had a three year window in which to act before the Entente achieved parity with Germany and it's allies, and chose to act first, before that window closed and they would be relegated to a 2nd class power. Interestingly, the Russians responded to the German bullying agressively for the same reasons, having had their egoes bruised and losing face by Japanese victories in the East against them.

The Austrians were faced with the possibility of a three front defensive war, a two front defensive war at best if they pursued agression in the Balkans and Italy chose not to intervine. Moltke assured them of German support, without which the Habsburgs wouldn't have attacked in the Balkans, and baited Russia into supporting it's Balkan treaties; at the same time he moved against France, the real goal, and ultimately invaded them on the pretext of a fake French attack on a German town, just as LBJ did in the Tonkin Gulf, and George W. did in Iraq. Power politics and the tactics and strategies never really changes much.

The 'Blame' factor comes in around the false premise that WW I was 'unavoidable'; it was perfectly avoidable, but German and Hapsburg egoism wouldn't let it lie. It had no real external threats, and was willing to touch off a major war merely to serve it's national ego, not for any real threat.

[cerberus]

Not a subject I know a great deal about but I grant you its much neglected and over shadowed by WW2.

I heard Sir Ian Kershaw talking a few weeks ago - he mentioned that WW1 gave Hitler ( for the time he was in the Army) a purpose and direction in his life which was until that time lacking.
Hitler described WW1 as being amongest the best years of his life - a strange way to describe so much death and horror.

Although I have not read much about WW1 the almost static battle lines and the repeated failures to "breakthough" are extremely depressing.
A total waste of life - the Somme seems to be a typical example , the destruction of the "Pals" and the utter failure of six months attacking for a few hundred yards of rat infested mud.

War at sea , Jutland an interesting battle which Germany so nearly won , after which the High Seas Fleet never ventured out again.

Speaking for myself an era I should make an effort to read more about.

[A. Radek]

Get a copy of David Stephenson's Cataclysm: The First World War As Political Tragedy, ISBN# 0-465-0818-3. It was published in 2004, and has some late info in it. Very comprehensive and well written. There is a even newer one out, but I don't recall the author or the name of the book, but it pretty much concurs with Stephenson's revisionist outlook. It is also one of the best history books I've read in a long time in general, well footnoted and a decent glossary as well. An excellent all around reference.

[Slavic Enforcer]

I have a great deal more sympathy for the Germans in WWI than I'm known for having for them in the second. :p

That doesn't wonder because in WWI they were not genocidal monsters like in WWII.


However, there are some things which strike me as a bit absurd. Why has there been an effort over the past twenty years to absolve Germany of any responsibility for the conflict? It was the German blank check to the Austrians which turned what would have been the Third Balkan War into the first world war.

Almost nobody tries to absolve Germany of any responsibility for the conflict. The people who do it, do it for ideological reasons.


I'm also curious what some of you Germanophiles think of Wilhelm II at the helm of the German state. :p

Well, I'm not really a Germanophile, but to me Wilhelm II was definitely better than Hitler.

[Dionysus]

Has anyone actually read the "blank check"?

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/blankche.html

[A. Radek]

Yes. It was merely a confirmation of support for the treaty alliance they already had. There was more to the German planning than just that, they were actively working to kick off the war and invade France, not just honor a treaty alliance with Austria-Hungary.

[Dionysus]

Quite interesting though, that the French were writing quite large cheques themselves, to the Russians. And prior to 1914.

Also that the Spirit of revanchism was an evident influence on French politics upto and after 1914. That's not necessarily a condemnation by myself, merely a statement of French political reality from 1871 until more affluent 1920s.

[A. Radek]

The French were in a defensive posture diplomatically and militarily. Having a defense treaty with Russia isn't a belligerent aggressive stance, any more than the U.S. having a treaty with Britain can be construed as a belligerent attack on Argentina by the U.S. during the Falklands war. France wasn't an aggressor, and neither was Russia, in the years leading up to WW I. As I pointed out, everybody knew where everybody stood, it was no secret. It was a deliberate choice on the part of the Germans to provoke the war. It was a simple matter to avoid it if they so chose to.

Germany simply didn't like the balance of power, and calculated they had a three year window of opportunity in which to change it, and looked for any excuse to start it. If the Hapsburgs had ultimately backed out of their attack in the Balkans, they would simply have gone ahead with their fabricated 'French bombing of on of our towns' scam and just relied on that alone. Russia was weak and behind in technology and organization, and there was no threat of invasion from them. Germany had only some 10% of its forces positioned on their possible invasion routes.


I mostly look on WW I as the final collapse of monarchies, the last vestiges of fuedalism in Central and Eastern Europe giving way to the modern era, in general. WW II was necessary because of the Allies failure to occupy Germany and stabilize it as a country, so it was just a continuation of WW I.

[Blond Knight]

Check out the book "Hitler, Born at Versailles" by Leon Degrelle

He goes into the pre-WWI political intrigues of Europe that ultimatly led to WWI.

[Kodos]

The French were in a defensive posture diplomatically and militarily

"We will reclaim Alsace Lorraine"... not defensive talk and they wouldn't give an assurance of neutrality. Obviously they planned to pounce.

Russia was weak and behind in technology and organization

Yes it was but nobody knew about it( they were experiencing a faster rate of economic growth then the US prior to WWI) yet. Otoh the Germans did assume they would be slower to mobilize then they did.

[Dionysus]

It's certainly true the French were in a weak position, at least until 1892. Also, I think it's certainly untrue the French were in a weak position after 1904.

And plan XVII was an offensive plan not a defensive one.

[A. Radek]

It's certainly true the French were in a weak position, at least until 1892. Also, I think it's certainly untrue the French were in a weak position after 1904.

And plan XVII was an offensive plan not a defensive one.

The French were not stronger than the Germans, though. The Germans had enough divisions to deliver a quick victory over the French, but Moltke pulled some divisions away to the Italian front, or to Southern Germany. Plan XVII was to counterattack along the whole front in order to blunt the German offensive, not invade Germany first. They had pretty good intelligence on the German buildup, and what Germany intended to do since 1905 or so. There are some German memos around showing this. This seems to be Stephenson's take on it, anyway. I personally wasn't there of course, just putting it up for discussion.

All sides knew France was too weak to defeat the German Army on the western front. It was only an offensive plan in this sense of stopping an already launched German offensive and keep it from gaining momentum. At least according to the Germans themselves that's the story. The generals at the time were writing about Moltke's weakening of the assault and committing too few divisions to it than were originally planned. Joffre was using Foch's ideas here, though he still didn't know if Germany was going to violate Belgian neutrality, and spread himself out too thin

[A. Radek]

The French were in a defensive posture diplomatically and militarily

"We will reclaim Alsace Lorraine"... not defensive talk and they wouldn't give an assurance of neutrality. Obviously they planned to pounce.

they were too weak to defeat the German buildup in the West.

Russia was weak and behind in technology and organization

Yes it was but nobody knew about it( they were experiencing a faster rate of economic growth then the US prior to WWI) yet. Otoh the Germans did assume they would be slower to mobilize then they did.

I don't know, you could be right. I would have thought the defeats by the Japanese made them look bad, and the Germans didn't commit much to that theater, until late. They seemd to be counting on Austria to bog them down while they went for a quick victory over France.

[Kodos]

I don't know, you could be right. I would have thought the defeats by the Japanese made them look bad, and the Germans didn't commit much to that theater, until late. They seemd to be counting on Austria to bog them down while they went for a quick victory over France.

Japan did make them look bad but that war was fought over in eastern Siberia and at sea... and as such the general staff worried about the size of Russia's land army. The reason the Von Schliefflen plan concentrated everything on France was it assumed that they could defeat France quickly but that Russia because of its vast size would be slow to mobilize. Even so Von Moltke transferred two Corps east before the battle of the Marne( which probably cost them).

Tannenberg went better then anyone on the German side expected( albeit the Russian commanders were totally incompetent, they were sending radio transmissions in the clear).

[Torquil]

I'm also curious what some of you Germanophiles think of Wilhelm II at the helm of the German state. :p

Disasterous. Otto von Bismarck never should have been let go.

[Dionysus]

The French were not stronger than the Germans, though.I know. But the Germans weren't dealing with the French alone, but with Russians in the East, and British in the West too.

The Germans had enough divisions to deliver a quick victory over the French, but Moltke pulled some divisions away...Yes, to East Prussia to stop the advancing Russians.

Plan XVII was to counterattack along the whole front in order to blunt the German offensive, not invade Germany first. It was only an offensive plan in this sense of stopping an already launched German offensive and keep it from gaining momentum. No it wasn't. It was an offensive plan to seize Alsace-Lorraine. A part of Germany at the time.;)

At least according to the Germans themselves that's the story. The generals at the time were writing about Moltke's weakening of the assault and committing too few divisions to it than were originally planned. Joffre was using Foch's ideas here, though he still didn't know if Germany was going to violate Belgian neutrality, and spread himself out too thinSchlieffen said the last man should brush the Channel coast with his sleeve. Schlieffen was right. Moltke was wrong.

Many a German General believed Moltke's great error was in relying on the word of a Lieutenant-Colonel. But that's another story.:D

[Donny the Punk]

Although I'm sure I've mentioned it in the past, you, Sulla, should look up the 'September Programme', an Imperial German plot to ignite war in order to seize neighouring territories discovered in the 70s or 80s by German historian Fritz Fischer. I'm not sure if he's available in translation, but there are certainly some internet sites detailing the conspiracy.

[Dionysus]

The September program was not formulated until September 1914. And included therein is nothing whatsoever which would reveal a plot. Just common war aims.

[A. Radek]

The Germans had little in the way of long term political goals, which is why after their initial attack on France failed, they continually changed their minds, sometimes by the day, as the war rolled along. Their only goal was a quick victory over France, after which they could squeeze overseas colonies and an 'empire' out of the other powers; their main goal was simply ego gratification and sabre rattling. It was no different under Hitler years later.

[WFHermans]

The zionists killed 100 million people when they refused to end the war in 1916. They got per the Balfour declaration a Jewish Homeland. In exchange they promised to bring the USA into the war.

[Kodos]

The Germans had little in the way of long term political goals, which is why after their initial attack on France failed, they continually changed their minds, sometimes by the day, as the war rolled along. Their only goal was a quick victory over France, after which they could squeeze overseas colonies and an 'empire' out of the other powers; their main goal was simply ego gratification and sabre rattling. It was no different under Hitler years later.

France's only( fanatical) goal was revenge) which is a laugh since the fuckers had been marching across the Rhine raping and pillaging for hundreds of years) for the Franco Prussian war.

[WFHermans]

Germany was attacked by France, Russia and Great Britain. Its goal was to defend itself.

[cerberus]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The zionists killed 100 million people when they refused to end the war in 1916. They got per the Balfour declaration a Jewish Homeland. In exchange they promised to bring the USA into the war.

WF - Did you get this in the "X" files ?
Sems very far fetched to me - considering that Jews fought in the German Army of 14-18.

[WFHermans]

If worldwar 1 would have ended in 1916 with a negotiated peace, there would have been no bolshevik revolution, no worldwar 2, and a general feeling that war is a waste in the age of the machinegun and poisongas.

[Dan Dare]

If Wilhelm II had not caused Bismarck to resign there would have been no WW I.

[WFHermans]

Bismarck died a few years after he resigned, in 1898 if I recall correctly.

[Dan Dare]

He was let go in 1890. The disastrous Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, which was a principal factor in Britain becoming embroiled in the Great War, largely stemmed from exasperation with Wilhelm's bellicosity and his reluctance to forge an Anglo-German Alliance. Bismarck was the consummate diplomat and keenly aware that such an alliance would be essential to secure long-term peace in Europe.

[WFHermans]

That's what the paid-for court "historians" will tell you, but if you look at the facts you'll notice that France and Britain were buddies since the Bourbon restauration. After 1831 they broke up the Netherlands, later they beat Russia together, early 1860s they invaded Mexico together.

Bismarck was in power for thirty years, plenty of time to force this Anglo-German Alliance if it would have been possible.

[Dan Dare]

There are plenty of instances of Anglo-French friction that refute that position, the Fashoda Incident for example.

[Felix the Cat]

Bismarck was dismissed because his policies had all failed by the late 1880s

The attempt to remain on friendly terms with both Austria and Russia became increasingly difficult after 1877, and it was obvious Germany would eventually have to choose between them

And his anti-Catholic campaign was causing serious social unrest in southern Germany (at a time when many in France were calling for a war of revenge)

William cut loose the Russians (who by then were irreconcilably hostile to Germany) and allied himself more closely with Austria, and he also put an end to the anti-Catholic nonsense, restoring national unity

All sensible policies. It's his subsequent actions which were the cause of trouble

[WFHermans]

Although I don't think it would have made much of a difference if Bismarck would have been in power a few years longer, the good thing is that it gave him time to write his memoirs. I hope to be able to read them one day.

Kaiser Bill wrote his memoirs as well when they got rid of him. That I also would like to read one day.

[Kodos]

Bismarck was dismissed because his policies had all failed by the late 1880s

How so?

The attempt to remain on friendly terms with both Austria and Russia became increasingly difficult after 1877, and it was obvious Germany would eventually have to choose between them

And should have chosen Russia, popular hostility didn't matter as long as the Tsar supported the alliance.


And his anti-Catholic campaign was causing serious social unrest in southern Germany (at a time when many in France were calling for a war of revenge)

It should have been better planned out but it was a noble effort to break the support of Vatican 5th columnists like Windhorst( and the "catholic" trade unions which put Hitler in power after WWI because they would support him but not any reactionary conservatives).

[WFHermans]

If Germany would have allied with Russia, it could have united the Germans of Austria-Hungary in one great Empire.

[Felix the Cat]

And should have chosen Russia, popular hostility didn't matter as long as the Tsar supported the alliance.
Whatever friendship with Russia had existed before was destroyed by the Berlin conference of 1878, when Bismarck helped deprive the Russians of nearly all their conquests in the previous war with Turkey

And you overestimate the efficiency of Tsarist tyranny - no tsar could afford to inflame public opinion in such a cavalier manner

It should have been better planned out but it was a noble effort to break the support of Vatican 5th columnists like Windhorst( and the "catholic" trade unions which put Hitler in power after WWI because they would support him but not any reactionary conservatives).

By the 1880s the French had rearmed and many hotheads in the country wanted another war. Berlin could not afford to continue alienating South Germans with these policies

[Kodos]

Whatever friendship with Russia had existed before was destroyed by the Berlin conference of 1878, when Bismarck helped deprive the Russians of nearly all their conquests in the previous war with Turkey

And you overestimate the efficiency of Tsarist tyranny - no tsar could afford to inflame public opinion in such a cavalier manner

Keeping the eastern flank clear so the full German army could not out France was crucial... it would be easy enough to sell Austria down the tubes and keep on Russia's side.

[WFHermans]

In 1887 Germany and Russia signed a treaty garanteeing mutual neutrality (under certain circumstances). Bismarck did a good job there, however the treaty was not renewed after he resigned.

It wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Worldwar 1 started with Russia's attack on Austria-Hungary.

[Sulla the Dictator]

In 1887 Germany and Russia signed a treaty garanteeing mutual neutrality (under certain circumstances). Bismarck did a good job there, however the treaty was not renewed after he resigned.

It wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Worldwar 1 started with Russia's attack on Austria-Hungary.

Really? I thought it started with Austria's attack on Serbia.

[Donny the Punk]

Or perhaps Germany's declaration of war on France on 3 August? After all, we can afford to pick and choose when it comes to Triple Alliance belligerence.

[WFHermans]

World war 1 started on 29 July 1914 when Russia mobilized its army against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[Donny the Punk]

It's nice to see that you unfailingly lap up all your masters' propaganda like a good dog. Hitler and von Moltke, what a pair of peacemakers according to Herman. If only wicked democratic countries hadn't let themselves be invaded by Germany and its two-bit allies, the Reich wouldn't have been provoked. Or something.

[WFHermans]

Facts are facts.

[Donny the Punk]

Sure, like the fact that Austria and Germany were the first two European countries to declare war. That Austria's invasion of Serbia provoked the conflict. That the Alliance was completely responsible for the affair. :)

[WFHermans]

The bully will always make up a reason why his victim "provoked" the attack.

[Donny the Punk]

The Nazi will always find a reason why Germany is the "victim" for invading every country surrounding it in aggressive wars of expansion.

[WFHermans]

No one ever disputed that on 29 July 1914 Russia mobilized its army against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[Donny the Punk]

The same way that no one ever disputed that Germany and Austria started the Great War.

[WFHermans]

That has been disputed very often.

[Donny the Punk]

Not by anyone with legitimate credentials or no axe to grind. I suppose it's also been "very often" asserted that Germany was the victim of French and British warmongering.

[WFHermans]

Truth is independent of the person that expresses it.

[Donny the Punk]

The truth that Austria and Germany started the war, you mean? :D

[WFHermans]

According to your logic, if someone "with an axe to grind" would say that Austria and Germany started the war, it wouldn't be true.

Many people with an axe to grind said Austria and Germany started the war, therefore Austria and Germany didn't start the war.

[Donny the Punk]

According to your logic, truth is independent of the person that expresses it. Therefore Austria and Germany started the war. :rofl:

[WFHermans]

Potty, learn about logic and then come back.

[Donny the Punk]

Herman, learn about history and the come back.

[WFHermans]

I learned about history. You have to learn a lot about both history and logic.

[Donny the Punk]

You've certainly learned how to be an effective mouthpiece for your Nazi handlers, but you haven't learned any facts or truths.

[WFHermans]

Fact: World War 1 started on 29 July 1914 when Russia mobilized its army against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[Donny the Punk]

Fact: that is a laughably stupid position. On 29 July, Wilhemn II telegraphed the Tsar. "It would be quite possible," he wrote, "for Russia to remain a spectator of the Austrio-Servian conflict without involving Europe in the most horrible war she has ever witnessed," and offered himself as a mediator. On receipt of this message, Nicholas II phoned the War Minister and ordered the cancellation of general mobilisation in favour of partial mobilisation. Hence Russia's military units were not mobilised in territories bordering on Germany, and cannot have been directed "against" it.

The farce of Russian hostility towards the Triple Alliance is a Greman propaganda myth. Austrian belligerence sparked the conflict with the invasion of Serbia. German belligerence turned it into a conflagration with the declaration of war on its neighbours, and the subsequent invasion of neutral countries as well as the first aggressive military manoeuvres. Austria was the first of the European countries to declare general mobilisation.

You are a Nazi dupe, Herman.

[Kodos]

Not by anyone with legitimate credentials or no axe to grind. I suppose it's also been "very often" asserted that Germany was the victim of French and British warmongering.

British not so much( Austria was in Russia's case), French warmongering its beyond dispute. The French had cultivated a national obsession with Alsace Lorraine following the Frano Prussian war.

Russia and France are primarily to blame for the 1st world war.

[Kodos]

Hermans get off the thread, having you on my side is similar to having one flank guarded by the Italian army.

[Sulla the Dictator]

British not so much( Austria was in Russia's case), French warmongering its beyond dispute. The French had cultivated a national obsession with Alsace Lorraine following the Frano Prussian war.

Russia and France are primarily to blame for the 1st world war.

Germany was interested in a pre-emptive war with Russia, and gave Austria the go ahead to invade Serbia, knowing that it would provoke the Russians.

[Kodos]

Germany was interested in a pre-emptive war with Russia, and gave Austria the go ahead to invade Serbia, knowing that it would provoke the Russians.

I find it hard to believe they believed the Tsar and his inner circle subscribed to the idiocy that was pan slavism.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I find it hard to believe they believed the Tsar and his inner circle subscribed to the idiocy that was pan slavism.

The Czar was interested in preserving Russian influence in the Balkans.

[Kodos]

Why would Germany knowingly provoke Russia when they knew France was waiting for that opprutunity to pounce?

[Donny the Punk]

France didn't mobilise until 2 August; hardly "waiting to pounce."

[Kodos]

France didn't mobilise until 2 August; hardly "waiting to pounce."

Can you post the timeline to put this in context I don't have it memorized.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Why would Germany knowingly provoke Russia when they knew France was waiting for that opprutunity to pounce?

Yes, since Germany thought it would destroy France in any open conflict.

[Kodos]

Yes, since Germany thought it would destroy France in any open conflict.

Just because they were prepared for a two front war didn't mean most of the general staff wasn't terrified at the prospect( especially with Britain joining against them).

[WFHermans]

If Germany really would have been the aggresor the controlled historians claim it was, they would simply have started a surprise attack against France. The Schlieffen plan would have succeeded then.

Germany could have given some explanation like "the French were planning to attack us" and "the French are oppressing the Bretons, the jews, the Flemish, the Occitans, the Basques, and we have to save those peoples from oppression".

[Anchorage Activist]

Can you post the timeline to put this in context I don't have it memorized.

From the following link:

http://www.worldwar1.com/tlplot.htm

28 June 1914 - Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated in Sarajevo

25 July 1914 - Serbia fully mobilized

26 July 1914 - Russia "pre-mobilized"

27 July 1914 - France issues standby mobilization

28 July 1914 - Dual Monarchy declares war on Serbia

30 July 1914 - Russia upgrades to full mobilization

31 July 1914 - France upgrades to full mobilization

1 Aug 1914 - Belgium fully mobilizes

4 Aug 1914 - Britain declares war on Central Powers

From the link, as well as other sources such as Barbara Tuchman's turgid but informative book August 1914, it appears war fever was highest in the Dual Monarchy and Great Britain. The Austrian side appeared more aggressive than the Hungarian side. Russia responded more out of a sense of obligation to Serbia than for territorial reasons. Germany responded more out of a sense of obligation to Austria-Hungary, but was not kept fully informed by the Dual Monarchy. Barbara Tuchman reported in her book that many Brits actually looked forward to war as if it were a glorified Boy Scout Jamboree. France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine.

IMHO, I think it's impossible to definitively state that one side or the other was absolutely responsible for WWI. However, the one power contributing the most to starting it was Austria-Hungary. Her demands on Serbia after the assassination of the Crown Prince were sufficiently extreme that they would have reduced Serbia to the status of a vassal state; no Serbian government could have fully accepted those demands and afterward remained in office. So while Austria cannot be considered exclusively responsible for the war, if you're looking for the country that fired the "first official shot", I'd say it was Austria. The Brits and the French also looked forward to the war for various reasons, while the Germans and the Russians, for more altruistic reasons, basically allowed themselves to be sucked into the war.

[Kodos]

IMHO, I think it's impossible to definitively state that one side or the other was absolutely responsible for WWI. However, the one power contributing the most to starting it was Austria-Hungary. Her demands on Serbia after the assassination of the Crown Prince were sufficiently extreme that they would have reduced Serbia to the status of a vassal state

Serbia deserved to have the pwnge administered for harboring terrorists, it was Russia's unwillingness to allow this which set everything off.

[Anchorage Activist]

[I] Serbia deserved to have the pwnge administered for harboring terrorists, it was Russia's unwillingness to allow this which set everything off.

http://www.worldwar1.com/tlplot.com.htm

Here's the intial reaction of Serbia from the link:


Belgrade wires its condolences to Vienna.
Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic renounces the Black Hand and orders all public meeting places closed.
The week long festival celebrating St. Vitus Day festival is cancelled.
Widespread rioting and looting by Croats and Moslems in Sarajevo directed towards the Serbian population. Good deal of property damage with injuries.

The Black Hand obviously was a terrorist group, but from the sequence above, it looks like the Serbian government took serious steps to neutralize them after the assassination. Even these steps appeared to be to conciliatory for the rioting Croats and Moslems in Sarajevo, which would reinforce the perception that the Serbian government didn't have much wiggle room.

[WFHermans]

If Mexico would have Dick Cheney assassinated, then would refuse even an investigation by the US government because "it would have reduced Mexico to the status of a vassal state; no Mexican government could have fully accepted those demands and afterward remained in office" every sane person would say that the USA would be right and Mexico would be wrong.

By the way, the jewish "historian" Barbara Tuchman is biased and unreliable. I read her book about the Zimmerman telegram, and she mistranslates the german source text of the Zimmerman telegram, which she with typical chutzpah leaves in her books, assuming that only a few of her readers know german. (In fact I wonder if they made a german translation of the book, I would be very surprised because they would look like complete asses if they would show the source text next to the "translation" by ms. Tuchman.)

[Sulla the Dictator]

If Germany really would have been the aggresor the controlled historians claim it was, they would simply have started a surprise attack against France. The Schlieffen plan would have succeeded then.


Non-German nations aren't computer controlled punching bags like in your RTS games, WFHermans. Germany couldn't 'surprise' France after 1870. That trick doesn't work twice in a row.

[WFHermans]

The Von Schlieffen plan almost succeeded in 1914 so it's extremely likely it would have succeeded if Germany would have surprised France.

I'll go over the fact that you don't know that France attacked Prussia (Germany didn't exist then) in 1870.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The Von Schlieffen plan almost succeeded in 1914 so it's extremely likely it would have succeeded if Germany would have surprised France.


Germany couldn't surprise France, as I've already told you.


I'll go over the fact that you don't know that France attacked Prussia


False. France DECLARED WAR on Prussia. She didn't 'attack it' other than some small and meaningless border skirmishes. Offensive initiative and surprise belonged to the Germans.


(Germany didn't exist then)

I didn't say Germany existed. Read what I said. I said Germany couldn't surprise France after 1870. That doesn't say Germany attacked France in 1870. That states a time from which French defenses were improved and preparations made for any future invasion.

You should read posts before you reply.

[WFHermans]

Germany couldn't surprise France, as I've already told you.
And why exactly is that so?
France DECLARED WAR on Prussia. She didn't 'attack it' other than some small and meaningless border skirmishes. Offensive initiative and surprise belonged to the Germans.
They must have been dumber than George W. Bush then.

[Sulla the Dictator]

And why exactly is that so?


Read what I said. I said Germany couldn't surprise France after 1870. That doesn't say Germany attacked France in 1870. That states a time from which French defenses were improved and preparations made for any future invasion.

You should read posts before you reply.

[WFHermans]

The Von Schlieffen plan almost succeeded in 1914 when France knew there would be war, so it's extremely likely it would have succeeded if Germany would have surprised France.

[Felix the Cat]

False. France DECLARED WAR on Prussia. She didn't 'attack it' other than some small and meaningless border skirmishes. Offensive initiative and surprise belonged to the Germans.
Important and often overlooked point: the French didn't think they were going to war with Germany in 1870, only with Prussia

In fact, Bismarck had negotiated secret treaties of alliance with the other German states, requiring them to support Prussia in any war with France

That the French army was outnumbered and outgunned in most of the subsequent battles was a direct consequence of this diplomatic miscalculation

[A. Radek]

British not so much( Austria was in Russia's case), French warmongering its beyond dispute. The French had cultivated a national obsession with Alsace Lorraine following the Frano Prussian war.

Russia and France are primarily to blame for the 1st world war.

Austria-Hungary's Hapsburg rulers and Wilhelm II are primarily to blame for WW I. The Russians had defense treaties with the Serbians. The French weren't the agressors. Germany had been building up for their invasion long before July, and French intelligence knew this. Germany had been sabre ratling since 1905, the year it's plans to invade France were drawn up. Germany attacked France based on a lie the French had bombed one of its cities. Germany encouraged the Hapsburgs to attack Serbia. This provoked the Tsar. Germany was hoping to gain some colonies out of the deal. They botched their invasion, and the war bogged down into a fight for ditches. France did not attack Germany first, and had no plans to invade them.

Somebody mentioned August 4 ? That was the day Germany invaded Belgium and began it's well known atrocities there. Britain entered the war because of of it's defense treaties with Belgium.

There is nothing to dispute here re German agression. The last two major histories written about this war confirm it without a doubt.

[A. Radek]

The Von Schlieffen plan almost succeeded in 1914 when France knew there would be war, so it's extremely likely it would have succeeded if Germany would have surprised France.

The plan failed because Moltke weakened the assault brigades down below the strength necessary for it's success because he was concerned about his middle and southern flank. It's not a given it would have succeeded even if he had the numbers of divisions needed. The French plans in the event of the German invasion was to counterattack along their entire front to blunt the invasion.

The premise the French were going to invade Germany is ridiculous. They didn't have the strength to do so, and knew it. They weren't arrogant loonies being ruled by Wilhelm and Lundedorff.

[WFHermans]

The premise the French were going to invade Germany is ridiculous. They didn't have the strength to do so, and knew it. They weren't arrogant loonies being ruled by Wilhelm and Lundedorff.
Then France should have kept out of the war, and it especially shouldn't have provoked that nasty mr. Lundedorff.

[A. Radek]

Then France should have kept out of the war, and it especially shouldn't have provoked that nasty mr. Lundedorff.

Well, I would ask how a country stays out of a war when it's been invaded, but, I consider the source of the statement and just move on ...:rofl:

[Kodos]

France did not attack Germany first, and had no plans to invade them.


Plan 17 was not a defensive plan...

[A. Radek]

Plan 17 wasn't approved untl the Spring of 1913, long after German intentions were clear. The 'Triple Entente' wasn't even formed until 1907 or so, after German sabre rattling during the First Moroccan Crisis. After Bulow's resignation in 1909 Bethmen Holweg took over and international relations and German, or more accurately Wilhelm's foreign policy became even more beligerent and erratic, leading the the Second Moroccan Crisis following a naval arms race with Britain. It was during this era, especially following the collapse of Bismarck's successsful quarantining of France foreign policy wise during the First Moroccan Crisis, that Britain, France, and Russia developed an allaince to contain Germany.

In 1911 Germany passed it's armament laws, and again in 1912 even more armament laws. France's plan 17 was just one of many, not the one they were acting on. It was a response to German agression in 1913, especially the sending of a German military mission to Turkey to rebuild it's military. The German commander was put in charge of the division defending Constantinople and also the units controlling the Dardanelles, a direct threat to Russia, and also led to the French agreement to aid Russia in building a strategic railway. France was over two years away from even thinking about Plan 17 being viable in 1914. Germany had massing on the French border long before that, and building railways in support for it's invasion plans on the northern flank since 1910. Up until 1913, French armament buildup and foreign policy had been purely defensive. Germany on the other hand left no doubts to anybody about their intentions for years before July 30, 1914.

[WFHermans]

Don't forget Saddam's plans to bomb the USA with his balsa planes. We should be ever vigilant against nazis like mr. Lundedorff.

[WFHermans]

In May 1911 France invaded Morocco. Suppose Germany would then have attacked France and because of the numerous treaties a worldwar would have started, who would in your view have been responsible for the outbreak of worldwar one?

[themistocles]

In May 1911 France invaded Morocco. Suppose Germany would then have attacked France and because of the numerous treaties a worldwar would have started, who would in your view have been responsible for the outbreak of worldwar one?

Germany, for being unreasonable. You are talking of a colonial possession, not a European ally.

[Kodos]

31 July 1914 - France upgrades to full mobilization

Potyondi you said they didn't mobolize till August 2nd?

[Kodos]

In 1911 Germany passed it's armament laws, and again in 1912 even more armament laws. France's plan 17 was just one of many, not the one they were acting on. It was a response to German agression in 1913, especially the sending of a German military mission to Turkey to rebuild it's military. The German commander was put in charge of the division defending Constantinople and also the units controlling the Dardanelles, a direct threat to Russia, and also led to the French agreement to aid Russia in building a strategic railway.

I must confess my knowledge of the history between the time Bismarck was sacked and the Archduke's assasination( and the months before) is rather weak, I know that Wilhelm had done much to alienate the British... but the most intense nationalist agitation was by the pan slavs and by France for Alsace Lorraine.

[WFHermans]

I have three questions for those interested in the subject of worldwar 1 guilt.

Suppose a miracle happens and the next elected US president will be someone who promises to prevent mestizos flooding the USA and kick those that are already in the USA out.

A few weeks before he will take office, the Mexican secret service has the incumbent president and his wife assassinated. Mexico promises to try and find those responsible, but refuses access by USA investigators and demands the areas that used to be Mexican in the 19th century to be turned over to Mexico. After one month, the USA loses its patience and strikes against Mexico.

1. Would the USA be right?
2. Would its NATO allies be right to support the USA?
3. Would Russia be right to mobilize against the USA?

[Dionysus]

I've always found this to be interesting reading.

This summary of the political situation was submitted to the Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, as the European powers hovered on the brink of war in the wake of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Bosnian Serbs. Note that Germany was bound to Austria by the Dual Alliance which promised joint action should either Germany or Austria be attacked by Russia. In these circumstances, it is to be assumed that the German military leaders would cast suspicions on Russian troop movements during the crisis, though there had been no formal orders for mobilization and no evidence to suggest that Russia desired war, despite the resolve of that government not to let Serbia in the lurch. The crisis deepened, however, on July 28 with the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia.

(Wednesday) July 29, 1914
It goes without saying that no nation of Europe would regard the conflict between Austria and Serbia with any interest except that of humanity, if there did not lie within it the danger of general political complications that today already threaten to unchain a world war. . . . With a patience approaching weakness, Austria has up to the present borne the continuous provocations and the political machinations [of Serbia] aimed at the disruption of her own national stability by [the Serbian people] . . .

Austria has declared to the European cabinets that she intends neither to make any territorial acquisitions at Serbia's expense nor to infringe upon her status as a nation; that she only wants to force her unruly neighbor to accept the conditions she considers necessary if they are to continue to exist side by side, and which Serbia, as experience has proved, would never live up to, despite solemn assurances unless compelled by force. The Austro-Serbian affair is a purely private quarrel in which, as has been said, nobody in Europe would have a profound interest and which would in no way threaten the peace of Europe but, on the contrary, would establish it more firmly, if Russia had not injected herself into it. This was what first gave the matter its menacing aspect.

Austria has only mobilized a portion of her armed forces . . --just enough with which to be able to put through her punitive expedition. As against this . . . (Russia) announces that she intends to mobilize when Austria advances into Serbia, as she cannot permit the destruction of Serbia by Austria, though Austria has explained that she intends nothing of the sort.

What must and will the further consequences be? If Austria advances into Serbia she will have to face not only the Serbian army but also the vastly superior strength of Russia; thus she can not enter upon a war with Serbia without securing herself against an attack by Russia. That means that she [Austria] will be forced to mobilize the other half of her Army, for she can not possibly surrender at discretion to a Russia all prepared for war. At the moment, however, in which Austria mobilizes her whole Army, the collision between herself and Russia will become inevitable. But that, for Germany, is the casus foederis [reason to go to war]. If Germany is not to be false to her word and permit her ally to suffer annihilation at the hands of Russian superiority, she, too, must mobilize. And that would bring about the mobilization of the rest of Russia's military districts as a result. But then Russia will be able to say: I am being attacked by Germany. She will then assure herself of the support of France, which, according to the compact of [the Franco-Russian]alliance, is obliged to take part in the war, should her ally, Russia, be attacked. Thus the Franco-Russian alliance, so often held up to praise as a purely defensive compact, created in order to meet the aggressive plans of Germany, will become active, and the mutual butchery of the civilized nations of Europe will begin.

It cannot be denied that the affair has been cunningly contrived by Russia. While giving continuous assurances that she was not yet "mobilizing", but only making preparations " for an eventuality," that "up to the present" she had called no reserves to the colors, she has been getting herself so ready for war that when she actually issues her mobilization orders, she will be prepared to move her armies forward in a very few days. Thus she puts Austria in a desperate position and shifts the responsibility to her, inasmuch as she is forcing Austria to secure herself against a surprise by Russia. She will say: You, Austria, are mobilizing against us, so you want war with us. Russia assures Germany that she wishes to undertake nothing against her; but she knows perfectly well that Germany could not remain inactive in the event of a belligerent collision between her ally [i.e., Austria] and Russia. So Germany, too, will be forced to mobilize, and again Russia will be enabled to say to the world: I did not want war, but Germany brought it about. After this fashion things must and will develop, unless, one might say, a miracle happens to prevent at the last moment a war which will annihilate for decades the civilization of almost all Europe.

Germany does not want to bring about this frightful war. But the German Government knows that it would be violating in ominous fashion the deep-rooted feelings of fidelity which are among the most beautiful traits of German character and would be setting itself against all the sentiments of the nation, if it did not come to the assistance of its ally at a moment which was to be decisive of the latter's existence.

According to the information at hand, France, also, appears to be taking measures preparatory to an eventual mobilization. It is apparent that Russia and France are moving hand in hand as far as regards their preparations.

Thus, when the collision between Austria and Russia becomes inevitable, Germany, also, will mobilize, and will be prepared to take up the fight on two fronts.

With relation to the military preparations we have in view, should the case arise, it is of the greatest importance to ascertain as soon as possible whether Russia and France intend to let it come to a war with Germany. The further the preparations of our neighbors are carried, the quicker they will be able to complete their mobilization. Thus the military situation is becoming from day to day more unfavorable for us, and can, if our prospective opponents prepare themselves further, unmolested, lead to fateful consequences for us.

[Ref.: M. Montgelas at al., Outbreak of the World War (New York, 1924), pp. 306-8]

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob91.html

[WFHermans]

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/ has many source documents of worldwar 1. Facts are preferable over books with "opinions".

[cerberus]

REurope was an unstable deck of cards waiting for a breeze to upset the delicate balance which chained nations together.
A teenager sufferring from TB with a gun set in train a chain of events which he could not have dreamnt of.
The man who pulled their strings was Atta , a Serbian officer.

[Dionysus]

You mean Dragutin Dimitrijević, alias "Apis"?

Greed, envy and fear caused the first World War.

[Donny the Punk]

31 July 1914 - France upgrades to full mobilization

Potyondi you said they didn't mobolize till August 2nd?
They didn't.


"That, by 31 July, was certainly the view of the French army. News, true or exaggerated, of German military preparations, had thrown even Joffre, "a byword for imperturbability," into a state of anxiety. The loss of advantage was a fear that now afflicted him as acutely as it had Janushkevich on 29 July and Moltke on 30 July. He foresaw the secret approach of German troops to their deployment positions while his own soldiers were still in barracks, German reservists kitting out at their depots while his were still at home. On the afternoon of Friday 31 July, he handed to Messimy, the Minister of War, a short note which epitomises, better than any other document of the crisis of July 1914, the state of mind which possessed the milutary professionals of the age.

It is absolutely necessary for the government to understand that, starting with this evening, any delay of twenty-four hours in calling up our reservists and issuing orders prescribing covering operations, will have as its result the withdrawal of our concentration points by from fifteen to twenty-five kilometres for each day of delay; in other words, the abandonment of just that much of our territory. The Commander-in-Chief must decline to accept this responsibility.

That evening he formally requested the President to order general mobilisation at once. His representation was debated by the cabinet next morning and the first day of mobilisation, to be 2 August, proclaimed at four o'clock that afternoon."

- John Keegan, The First World War, p. 68

[cerberus]

You mean Dragutin Dimitrijević, alias "Apis"?

Thank you , the name escaped me.
All existed , this chap just "happened to be smoking in the powder room" and set forces in motion.
Either way a lot waste of life which should never have happened.

[WFHermans]

After the assassination, Austria-Hungary had every right to follow the terrorists into their country.

[themistocles]

After the assassination, Austria-Hungary had every right to follow the terrorists into their country.

It's an interesting point, but I guess it begs the question that if we accept that as a valid cassus belli, then why the lengthy delay? And why the strange list of demands by Austria?

[WFHermans]

It took time, first, to figure out that the origin of the terrorist attack was in Serbia, second, to talk to Serbia and find out they effectively said fuck you, third, to draw up an ultimatum, and forth, to give Serbia time to respond.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/austro-hungarian-ultimatum.html is the text of the ultimatum.

It was this point that was refused by the Serb government, which led to the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary:

6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose;

[WFHermans]

The following script is from AJP Taylor's 1977 book "How Wars Begin" (ISBN 0-241-10017-8) ( D299 .T37 1979)

The Austrian declaration of war on Serbia was pure theory; no action followed it. Now this gives the essential factor in the outbreak of the first world war. All the great powers, of whom there were five, or six counting Italy, had vast conscript armies. These armies of course were not maintained in peace time. They were brought together by mobilization. This factor had already counted before in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, but this time there was a further complication.

All mobilization plans depended on railways. At that time the automobile was hardly used, certainly not as an instrument of mass transport, and railways demand time tables.

All the mobilization plans had been timed to the minute, months or even years before and they could not be changed. Modification in one direction would ruin them in every other direction. Any attempt for instance by the Austrians to mobilize against Serbia would mean that they could not then mobilize against Russian because two lots of trains would be running against each other. The same problem was to arise later for the Russians and in the end for the Germans who, having a plan to mobilize against France, could not switch round and mobilize again against Russia. Any alteration in the mobilization plan meant not a delay for 24 hours but for at least six months before the next lot of timetables were ready.

The Austrians could not mobilize against Serbia because this would mean that they were defenseless against Russia so they did not mobilize at all.

The Russians then thought they ought to stake out some claim to prove that they were going to support Serbia so the tsar and his advisers contemplated mobilization by only against Austria and this was actually ordered. Then the Russian generals who knew about the timetables pointed out that if they began to mobilize against Austria, they would then be totally defenseless against Germany because they could not then mobilize against Germany. Partial mobilization was scrapped. The next day the Russian generals said 'But this is terrible. We have done nothing.. Right, we will have general mobilization.' They were still hesitating and the chief of the general staff himself said that this was rather pushing things beyond what they wanted. They had no idea of a war against Germany or even against Austria. They wanted a threat, not a real preparation for war. Mobilization was a mere gesture.

The chief of the general staff rashly said in the tsar's presence 'It is very hard to decide.' The tsar who was one of the most weak-willed men there had ever been, was roused by this and said 'I will decide: general mobilization.' He then, according to his diary , having made this decision, went out, found a pleasant warm day and went for a bathe in the sea. His diary does not mention mobilization.

Now with Russia mobilizing, the problem moved to Germany and here again this was entirely a matter of timetables. It was said afterwards that mobilization meant war. Technically for most countries this was not true; it was merely a step towards war. Mobilization after all took place within the country. The Royal Navy had mobilized as late as 1911. Russia mobilized 1913. There were occasions when other powers had mobilized and because war did not take place the armies could be dispersed. With one country, however, this did not apply. The Germany general staff ever since the creation of a united Germany in 1871 under Bismarck had contemplated the possibility of war on two fronts: France on the one side, Russia on the other.

It is the function of general staffs to plan for wars. Germany had two great neighbors, France on the one side, Russia on the other. Moreover in 1894, France and Russia made an alliance which was technically defensive in nature, that each would help the other if attacked. Thus Germany might have a two-front war. Successive German chiefs of general staff, Moltke, Schlieffen, the younger Moltke, all laid down 'Germany cannot fight two great wars at the same time.'

As often happens with chiefs of the general staff, they were quite wrong. In 1914 Germany fought a two-front war and continued to fight it successfully until 1918. This was a false alarm but it was an alarm which absolutely dictated their policy.

If you are faced with war on two fronts and have not got the resources to conduct both wars, what should you do? By definition you cannot eliminate one of the dangers by diplomacy because if you did there would not be a two-front war, in fact there would not be a war at all. You must assume that diplomacy has failed.

The German answer was to get in one blow first and so decisively that they would have eliminated one enemy. At first they thought of doing it against Russia, then decided that that was too difficult. Russia was too big; the German army would go rambling into far remote places. The other answer therefore was to eliminated France. Ever since they began planning this the idea had been 'We must beat France first.' But France had a strongly fortified frontier. After about 1890 the Germans decided they could not rush this frontier in the way that they had rushed it in 1870. A way round must be found and it must be through Belgium. The Germans arrived at this conclusion as early as 1893 although it took a long time before the full plan was developed. Its most detailed form was laid down in 1905.

One essential part of this plan was to go through Belgium. The other essential part which was equally important was that there could be no delay between mobilization and war because if there were delay then Russia would catch up and the Germans would get the two-front war after all. So the moment that the Germans decided on mobilization, they decided for war, or rather the war followed of itself. The railway timetables which in other countries brought men to their mobilizing centers, in the Schlieffen Plan continued and brought the troops not to the their barracks, but into Belgium and Northern France. The German mobilization plan actually laid down the first 40 days of the Germans invasion of France and none of it could be altered because if it did all the timetables would go wrong. Thus the decision for mobilization which the German general staff made and which Bethmann endorsed on 29 July was a decision for a general European war.

There was no deeper consideration in the background. Nothing was weighed except the technical point: if Russia mobilizes we must go to war. Serbia and Austria-Hungary were forgotten. The Germans declared war on Russia simply because Russia had mobilized.

The Germans were very stuck over France; they had no conceivable grievance against France. They demanded that France should promise neutrality, to which the French prime minister merely replied 'France will consult her own interests.' The Germans then invented an allegation that Nuremberg had been bombed by French plane. This was untrue. Whether there had ever been bombing I am not clear. It may be that a German plane had dropped bombs, but who did what did not matter; the thing was to get the war going. Thus the war came about mainly because of railway timetables.

There was one further and in the long run perhaps the most dramatic and decisive consequence. The continental powers were at war; Great Britain was not. The whole trend of British policy or certainly the desire of the British people had been to stay out or war.

The Liberal government asserted that Great Britain had given no pledges. In secret the British had already arranged a railway timetable to take the British army to the left flank of the French army but this had been concealed from the British public. Assertions were made constantly by the prime minister and by the foreign secretary that no commitment had been made which would limit the freedom of Parliament and the British people to decide.

Now this was very awkward because the French had been told over and over again 'Yes, yes, we shall stand by you if you are threatened by Germany' and the cabinet was divided. It looked as if the Liberal government would break up, perhaps the Conservatives would take over, there would be even more controversy than there had been during the Boer War, more than there had been during the revolutionary wars against France. Then came the news that the Germans had demanded the right to through Belgium.

It is often said that this had been known for a long time beforehand. That the Germans had such military plans was indeed known, but the diplomatic consequences were not realized. Indeed Bethmann Hollweg himself, the German Chancellor, had no idea until 29 July that he would be setting his name to a demand that the Germans should go through Belgium.

British Liberal ministers later on claimed that they had hung back and said 'Don't worry' because they knew Belgium would solve the problem. However it came as a complete surprise to most people and produced a tremendous reaction. Great Britain it seemed went to war, not in order to play a part in the balance of power, not in order to aid France or to destroy Germany as an imperial rival or to destroy the German navy. Great Britain went to war, in the phrase used from the very first, 'to fulfil her obligations to Belgium and in defense of the rights of small nations'. This did the trick in the House of Commons. It did the trick with the British public opinion. In a sense it has done the trick with people ever since.

Very few people looked at the Treaty of 1839 which established Belgium as a neutral country. The guarantor countries were given by this treaty the right to intervene in order to defend the neutrality of Belgium. There was no obligation laid on them to do so. I am not saying for a moment that there was no obligation of a moral kind. Belgium was a small country and it was very wrongfully invaded, just as for instance in 1916 France and Great Britain invaded Greece in exactly the same way, though with less fighting than when the Germans invaded Belgium, but the treaty obligation was something invented for the sake of public opinion.

http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm

[WFHermans]

The following script is from his "The First World War" (1963), ( D521 .T39 1966)

Here the second factor of high strategy intervened to decisive and disastrous effect. All military authorities in Europe believed that attack was the only effective means of modern war, essential even for defense. They were quite wrong about this. They could have learnt from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, and from the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 (or even from the American Civil War half a century earlier) that defense was getting stronger and attack more difficult. None of them learnt this. Every chief of staff had offensive plans, and only offensive plans. All hoped to win from the superior offensive spirit of their army. All except one. The German general staff did not believe that they could conquer decisively if they had to fight at full strength on two fronts, against both France and Russia at once. Therefore they had long planned, ever since 1892, to put practically all their armed weight in the west and to knock out France before the slow machine of Russian mobilization could lumber into action. It was often said in 1914, and has been often repeated since: "mobilization means war". This was not true. All the Powers except one could mobilize and yet go on with diplomacy, keeping the armies within their frontiers. Mobilization was a threat of high order, but still a threat. The Germans, however, had run mobilization and war into one. In this since, Schlieffen, Chief of German General Staff from 1892 to 1906, though dead, was the real maker of the First World War. 'Mobilization means war' was his idea. In 1914 his dead hand automatically pulled the trigger.

For the Russian decision to mobilize threw out the German timetable. If the Germans did nothing, they would lose the advantage of superior speed. They would have to face war on two fronts, not on once; and this, they imagined, they could not win. Either they had to stop Russia's mobilization at once by threat of war, or they had to start the war, also at once. On 31 July Bethmann asked Moltke: 'Is the Fatherland in danger?' Moltke answered: 'Yes'. This was the moment of decision. Germany sent an ultimatum, demanding Russian demobilization within twelve hours. The Russians refused. On 1 August Germany declared war on Russia; two days later, with hardly an attempt at excuse, on France. The First World War had begun - imposed on the statesmen of Europe by railway timetables. It was an unexpected climax to the railway age.