History questions not worth their own thread IV

[W|M]

Is it likely that Operation Blue would have succeeded without Hitler's constant interventions trying to make his troops advance faster?

 

[innonimatu]

12. World War I was caused by the German 'blank cheque' to Austria-Hungary / a German grab for world power, through an operational necessity by Germany to occupy Paris by M-42, known as the 'Schlieffen Plan'.

What's the problem with this one? Sure, it takes two sides to make a war, but with no german grab for power before WW1 (the fleet, colonial expansion and so on) the UK would probably have remained isolated, France might not want to go to war only with Russia against the central states, and Serbia might just have been left to hang. So... let's blame the germans!

 

[Dachs]

What's the problem with this one? Sure, it takes two sides to make a war, but with no german grab for power before WW1 (the fleet, colonial expansion and so on) the UK would probably have remained isolated, France might not want to go to war only with Russia against the central states, and Serbia might just have been left to hang. So... let's blame the germans!

The United Kingdom did not ally with France because of Germany's threat, it allied with France because France was more threatening to British interests than Germany was and had to be co-opted. Through the 1890s, France and Germany effectively had a contest to see who could be more dickish and aggressive in order to win the British alliance; Germany failed because it showed that it was willing to be bribed away (see e.g. the Anglo-German treaty on Portugal that paved the way for the second Boer War) whereas France brought the UK to the brink of war over freaking equatorial Sudan.

It also helped that France was Russia's ally, and so an accommodation with France could be converted fairly easily into an accommodation with Russia. This was also extremely useful to the British, since the Russians were more threatening to India and China than the Germans ever would be; again, an instance of Germany failing to provide a credible threat. They weren't worth buying off, in effect.

This policy started, incidentally, with the Anglo-American Treaty of Washington in the 1870s and the settling of the CSS Alabama claims. First the British bought off the Americans, then they bought off the Japanese, then the French, and finally the Russians.

 

[LightSpectra]

What's the problem with this one? Sure, it takes two sides to make a war, but with no german grab for power before WW1 (the fleet, colonial expansion and so on) the UK would probably have remained isolated, France might not want to go to war only with Russia against the central states, and Serbia might just have been left to hang. So... let's blame the germans!

In addition to what Dachs has already said: There was never a "grab for world power" on behalf of the Germans. Their foreign policy was, specifics aside, the same as the British and French empires. Furthermore, the "blank cheque" was issued after the Austro-Hungarian ministry had decided on an invasion of Serbia, effectively making anything the Germans did during the July Crisis irrelevant to the triggering of war between Austria-Hungary and Russia, which in turn activated all of the other alliances.

This is a post I made a long time ago on the subject:

I basically agree with you. Entente apologists have found several ways to suggest that the Central Powers were to blame for the war; that Germany was "evil" or "ultra-militaristic" or "proto-Nazis" (all preposterous); that Germany made war inevitable by initiating the arms race (even though it takes two to race, and the subject usually brought up is the battleship race with Britain, which Germany withdrew from in 1912, two years before the July Crisis); they'll bring up the colonial genocides by the hand of the German Empire (even though Britain and France also did that); they'll bring up Germany's belligerent foreign policy and gunboat diplomacy (even though Britain also did that); they'll bring up how Germany goaded the war by giving the blank check to the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry (even though the decision for war was already made at that point); they'll bring up how Germany's war plan was a zero-sum game (even though the "Schlieffen Plan" thesis has evolved substantially since the publication of the Guns of August); they'll claim that Germany wanted a war the whole time (without an adequate explanation for how they actually caused it); they'll declare the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia to have been unreasonable (even though the person who ordered the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Dragutin Dimitrijević, was a member of the Serbian General Staff and the government was probably sheltering him); they'll insist that Germany had no obligation to assist Austria-Hungary (even though they had a contractual alliance, whereas Russia did not have the same for Serbia); they'll suggest that the whole war was about monarchism against democracy (even though, of all the major players in the war circa 1914, the only republic was France); they'll claim that the Russian Empire was forced to mobilize because if they didn't, their sluggish rail system would've left them at a severe disadvantage (even though that's a ridiculous Casus belli, and the opening of the Soviet archives has revealed this to be blatantly untrue); and they'll claim that the Central Powers were at fault for post-facto things utterly irrelevant to the issue, including but not limited to: the invasion of Belgium, mustard gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, the Armenian genocide, the Zimmerman telegram, the Nazis, the Manifesto of 93, Mitteleuropa, etc.

Thread

There was also no Schlieffen Plan. Read Dachs' article on the subject, "Keeping the Right Wing Strong".

 

[innonimatu]

The United Kingdom did not ally with France because of Germany's threat, it allied with France because France was more threatening to British interests than Germany was and had to be co-opted. Through the 1890s, France and Germany effectively had a contest to see who could be more dickish and aggressive in order to win the British alliance; Germany failed because it showed that it was willing to be bribed away (see e.g. the Anglo-German treaty on Portugal that paved the way for the second Boer War) whereas France brought the UK to the brink of war over freaking equatorial Sudan.

Ok, that actually makes perfect sense. Or at least matches the choices of alliances I know better, like my own country trying to ally with Spain (supposedly a natural enemy for being right on the border) then to the UK, then to the US (whomever controls the Atlantic, really).
I just hadn't realized that the french had been noticeably more threatening to the UK than the germans.

This policy started, incidentally, with the Anglo-American Treaty of Washington in the 1870s and the settling of the CSS Alabama claims.

hum, what? I though the UK and the US had managed to remain on good terms during the american civil war. That issue was actually politically relevant?

In addition to what Dachs has already said: There was never a "grab for world power" on behalf of the Germans. Their foreign policy was, specifics aside, the same as the British and French empires.

Well, that kind of reinforces my belief that there was a grab for power. They were just a little... diplomatically inept?

 

[sophie]

I don't know about on these forums specifically, but I remember in the EB forums there used to be a lot of bone-headed comments about how barbarians/foederati/adopting foederati tactics and armor weakened the all-powerful army of the Early Roman Empire (or during the period of the 5 good emperors, thanks Gladiator) which led to them easily being swallowed by the "barbarian invaders".

Probably a subset of barbarians destroyed Rome, but one I've definitely seen a lot elsewhere. This one also connects to the ever popular "Romans were more technologically advanced than Medieval Europe in every way" lines of thought, particularly of the "Medieval Europe would have gotten owned by superior Roman tactics" realm.

But the latter is among the most egregious of misconceptions from adamantly misinformed individuals so it probably doesn't jive with this more magnanimous list of yours.

There's also the anything about how England was a major power in Europe during the Renaissance, and general Elizabeth I was an awesome queen whiggery.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Elizabeth I was an awesome queen whiggery.

That's the worst.

And I'll throw a related one in: Henry VIII was a terrible king.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, that kind of reinforces my belief that there was a grab for power. They were just a little... diplomatically inept?

Ah, sorry, I should've perhaps clarified. You're interpreting "grab for world power" in a very general sense, but Griff nach Weltmacht is a specific term used to indict the Kaiserreich; the term refers to the supposition that Germany bellowed into World War I so that it could knock out France and permanently secure itself as the continental overlord. This is utter nonsense.

That's the worst.

And I'll throw a related one in: Henry VIII was a terrible king.

That's the myth, right?

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's the myth, right?

Yeah. I mean, he was no Henry VIIth, but he certainly did better then any of his descendants.

 

[History_Buff]

hum, what? I though the UK and the US had managed to remain on good terms during the american civil war. That issue was actually politically relevant?

Not really. Neither side wanted a war with the other, so that wasn't going to happen, but both sides saw the other as harassing them in assorted ways. Most notably, the Americans were fairly furious that the CSA's navy had largely been constructed in the UK, whereas the US was busily denouncing the UK before and during the war. I believe it was Seward who wanted to start a war with the UK to distract the nation from the whole slavery thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Plus there was that whole "invasion of Canada" business once or twice in there.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yeah. I mean, he was no Henry VIIth, but he certainly did better then any of his descendants.

I'll have to disagree. The budget surplus carefully amassed by Henry VII was squandered by continental wars that accomplished very little to advance England's agenda. Furthermore, the bloody English Reformation basically solidified Henry as being a tyrant and estranged his foreign policy with his most vital ally, the Habsburgs. The few positive things he's remembered for, like the Mary Rose and Field of the Cloth of Gold, were mainly matters of symbolic prestige and were--practically speaking--not beneficial to England or the Tudor dynasty.

 

[sophie]

I'll have to disagree. The budget surplus carefully amassed by Henry VII was squandered by continental wars that accomplished very little to advance England's agenda. Furthermore, the bloody English Reformation basically solidified Henry as being a tyrant and estranged his foreign policy with his most vital ally, the Habsburgs. The few positive things he's remembered for, like the Mary Rose and Field of the Cloth of Gold, were mainly matters of symbolic prestige and were--practically speaking--not beneficial to England or the Tudor dynasty.

Yeah, they were both pretty bad. I once wrote an essay comparing just how bad they were for an English history class.

I didn't include Henry VIII because the misconceptions about Henry VIII are usually either trivial (He actually was a pretty good looking guy in his youth) or just the fact that most Americans just remember him as just some fat bastard that wanted to stick his royal rood into multiple naves simultaneously, and that's about it.

There are some other good ones though, like that England had an easy ride into Protestantism after Henry's break, or that Mary was a merciless tyrannical "bloody" Catholic in a very Protestant kingdom. And that England was spared her vengeance by a (relatively) early death and the accession of the glorious awesome completely competent Elizabeth who was always just, never burned people, and could do no wrong.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yeah, they were both pretty bad. I once wrote an essay comparing just how bad they were for an English history class.

'Both'? Who is the other person, Henry VII or Elizabeth?

 

[sophie]

'Both'? Who is the other person, Henry VII or Elizabeth?

VIII and Lizzy. Really I was comparing their respective approaches to foreign policy, but it really came out that neither of them was particularly good at it, although Elizabeth's was certainly more coherent.

 

[LightSpectra]

Meh. The only post-Wessex monarch that I really have any special admiration for is James II, and I don't even think even he was overall superb.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'll have to disagree. The budget surplus carefully amassed by Henry VII was squandered by continental wars that accomplished very little to advance England's agenda.

Probably the blackest mark on his record as far as this goes. Definitely the low point of his career.

Furthermore, the bloody English Reformation basically solidified Henry as being a tyrant

Well I don't really care much about that because they were all tyrants. I'm evaluating how good they did at a job I despise so...I'd actually weigh the English Reformation in his favor. He managed to pull off an extremely difficult task with very little backlash, while always keeping the option of reconciliation open.

The few positive things he's remembered for, like the Mary Rose and Field of the Cloth of Gold, were mainly matters of symbolic prestige and were--practically speaking--not beneficial to England or the Tudor dynasty.

...Honestly I don't even know what those things are. The good things I mostly remember was the massive improvement of the English Navy, the confiscation of Church property and Surrender and Regrant,

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't really care much about that because they were all tyrants. I'm evaluating how good they did at a job I despise so...I'd actually weigh the English Reformation in his favor. He managed to pull off an extremely difficult task with very little backlash, while always keeping the option of reconciliation open.

Explain to me how executing his finest minister (More), an excellent bishop (Fisher), in addition to many other martyrs, destroying monasteries (still immensely important for literature and education even to the 16th century) for a short-term financial gain, and nearly wrecking his diplomatic ties with his most important military and financial ally in the Habsburgs, weighs in his favor?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Explain to me how executing his finest minister (More), an excellent bishop (Fisher), in addition to many other martyrs, destroying monasteries (still immensely important for literature and education even to the 16th century) for a short-term financial gain, and nearly wrecking his diplomatic ties with his most important military and financial ally in the Habsburgs, weighs in his favor?

While the damaging of relations with Habsburgs is a problem for him, it is not the business of Kings to be concerned with martyrs, or literature or monasteries. Evaluating a good king is much the same as evaluating a good bandit, or a good extortionist. Indeed, many kings are all three. He managed to impose his religious will on England, a task that many monarchs were not up to, and managed to serve his financial ambitions and increase his power over England while doing it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Okay so from the Machiavellian school of thought, he was a decent king. I was moreso evaluating him from a moral, statesmanly standpoint.