Lets bash Britain

[Chukchi Husky]

I thought Germany did nothing and were simply dragged into World War I, then blamed for it afterwards, although I been told otherwise.

 

[Dachs]

I thought Germany did nothing and were simply dragged into World War I, then blamed for it afterwards, although I been told otherwise.

The German government was plenty culpable. Every belligerent, except possibly the Ottoman Empire, had a choice as to whether or not it would go to war. But at bottom, the war was a Russian one designed to facilitate the conquest of Constantinople and to break up the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, supported by France (knowingly) and Britain (obliviously).

 

[Borachio]

I thought Germany was trying to break up the Triple Entente. And miscalculated.

And you do mean obliviously, I take it? Can you substantiate that Britain simply had no idea what was going on? Or do you mean they deliberately ignored what they knew was going on?

 

[Dachs]

I thought Germany was trying to break up the Triple Entente. And miscalculated.

Sure, that was happening too. But it took place against a background of Entente efforts - chiefly Russian efforts - to break up the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, efforts that predated the July Crisis itself. Fundamentally, the German and Austro-Hungarian governments believed that war was undesirable but less undesirable than the current state of affairs; if the Entente could be broken without war, that was the ideal circumstance, but if it had to come to war, then war it would be. Russia, on the other hand, had fundamental foreign policy objectives that could not be fulfilled without war, and which were predicated on sparking such a war; the Russians had the connivance of several French diplomatic figures in this effort.

More to the point, if mobilization is taken as a statement of intent to go to war - which it more or less is by most scholars of the conflict - then Russia's secret mobilization of 24 July (the declaration of a Period Preparatory to War, which was, in effect, mobilization, despite the lack of a formal mobilization order by the tsar) preceded the German chancellor's decision to permit the German army to mobilize by a full five days, and preceded the actual German mobilization by a week. Russia may have even taken further preliminary steps towards mobilization even earlier than that, given the presence of Siberian units in western Russia in late July.

And you do mean obliviously, I take it? Can you substantiate that Britain simply had no idea what was going on? Or do you mean they deliberately ignored what they knew was going on?

That is what I mean, yes. The British, in general, were clueless about goings-on in St. Petersburg, due to the incompetence of the ambassador there, Sir George Buchanan, who frequently noted items of interest but failed to put the pieces together. From Buchanan's correspondence, one can easily figure out that the Russian "Period Preparatory to War" was, in fact, a secret mobilization; Buchanan himself failed to notice this completely.

Amazingly, [Sazonov] seems to have succeeded in [hiding Russia's secret mobilization from the British] by simply not telling them. The closest Sir George Buchanan came to sniffing out the truth was in a dispatch on 26 July, when he informed London that the "Governments of St. Petersburg and Moscow have been placed in a 'state of extraordinary protective activity'." [This corresponded to a state of siege, part of the Period Preparatory to War measures.] This vague-sounding measure had been taken, Buchanan explained to [Sir Edward] Grey [the British Foreign Secretary], "ostensibly in view of strikes" (this is the lie [Sergei] Sazonov [the Russian Foreign Minister] must have told him). Mildly suspicious, the British ambassador speculated that, since "strikes here are practically over", the measure may have been "concerned with intending mobilization". Earlier that afternoon, Grey had been told by Germany's Ambassador Lichnowsky that Berlin had "received information that Russia was calling in 'classes of reserves', which meant mobilization." Grey dismissed Lichnowsky's complaint out of hand, telling him that "we had no information as to a general mobilization or indeed of any mobilization immediately." With curious conviction, Grey further assured Lichnowsky that the Russian "Ukase to mobilize 1,100,000 men has not been issued." This was not only expressly untrue, but the specificity of Grey's comment suggests that the British may have heard something after all. At any rate, Grey was clearly uninterested in investigating further.

Throughout the war, Britain would continue to effectively be a dupe in the perpetuation of Russian imperialistic measures. British, French, and ANZAC troops would fight and die at Gallipoli to ensure Russian control of Constantinople, while the Russian Black Sea Fleet stood at anchor in Sevastopol, Odessa, and Novorossiysk. Even the Sykes-Picot agreement to carve up the Ottoman Empire gave the lion's share of the pickings to Russia, and with curiously little struggle from the French and British, both of whom gave way on key concessions in exchange for basically nothing.

Imperial Russia's sins were effectively washed away by the Revolution - although even before the French and British hardly considered them sins at all - especially in order to try to demonize the Bolsheviks and to play up the angle of a Russia betrayed to them by perfidious allies who forced her into a war that ended up being the instrument of her doom.

 

[Oerdin]

Germany felt it was surrounded by the allies and that it's only good friend was Austria-Hungary so when Serbian nationalists killed the heir to the Austrian throne Germany gave a "blank check" to Austria saying we'll support what ever moves you make. Austria, thus emboldened, sent an ulimatium to Serbia with loads of conditions they could never accept even though the Serbian government had nothing to do with the terrorist group which had assassinated the Arch Duke. Russia, feeling it was the protector of the slavic people, told Serbia they would go to war with Austria to protect Serbia. Since Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary it had to declare war on Russia and since France was allied with Russia it declared war on Germany and Austria Hungary while offering help to Serbia. Italy was allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary but didn't want to go to war with France so they dishonored their alliance and stayed neutral for a time (besides there was nothing to gain by Italy in a war with France or Russia but it did want land from Austria-Hungary). Britain didn't really want to get involved and was dragging it's feet pointing out it didn't have an alliance with Russia and it's treaty with France was defensive only but that France had declared war on Germany.

The UK finally got involved any way though because Germany invaded Belgium to get into France and the UK had signed a treaty 80 years before with Belgium promising to help the country should they ever get invaded. Germany looked around for more allies as they felt outnumbered and spent several weeks convincing the Ottomans to join their side in exchange for the sale of modern equipment and a return of land previously taken by the British in Egypt and the Russians in the Caucasus. The Bulgarians decided they wanted to press their claim to what is now Macedonia which meant going to war with Serbia & Russia but getting help from the Ottomans. Meanwhile The Rumanians, backed by the Russians declared war on the entire central powers hoping to gain territory from Austria Hungary.

 

[ace99]

Throughout the war, Britain would continue to effectively be a dupe in the perpetuation of Russian imperialistic measures. British, French, and ANZAC troops would fight and die at Gallipoli to ensure Russian control of Constantinople, while the Russian Black Sea Fleet stood at anchor in Sevastopol, Odessa, and Novorossiysk. Even the Sykes-Picot agreement to carve up the Ottoman Empire gave the lion's share of the pickings to Russia, and with curiously little struggle from the French and British, both of whom gave way on key concessions in exchange for basically nothing.

Interesting. How much role did Tsar Nicholas have in directing Russia's foreign policy? Is there an individual responsible or was it the Russian Foreign Ministry? So a hypothetical victorious Imperial Russia would look like what? Control the Black Sea and the Straits. Probably control Persian Azarbaijan and Gilan. Presumably Galicia from Austria. What about Eastern Prussia? Was it conceivable of a Russia that reached the Oder?

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

It's a bit chilly, out. Stupid Britain.

 

[Ironsided]

Pompous w4nk-stains. Pay your damn taxes!

 

[marmohr]

Being British means driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then on the way home grabbing a Turkish kebab or an Indian take-away, to sit on a Swedish sofa and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.

But most of all it means being suspicious of anything foreign.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

Drinking and driving? That's pretty universal surely

Actually, that all sounds pretty universal thanks to the miracles of globalisation and its subsequent backlash

 

[filli_noctus]

Don't be daft, we can't afford German cars.

 

[metatron]

Their spelling is dumb and they're far too pretentious about their entertainment.

It's still called aluminium.

Molybdenum, lanthanum, tantalum and platinum notwithstanding.

And it's pronounced like that, too.
RP: /ˌæl.jʊˈmɪn.i.əm/

British people never see the sun 2 days in a row,

Their best chefs wouldn't qualify to work at a McDonalds outside of Britain,

I see you all still use wooden teeth - we invented a thing called toothpaste here,

British people sound like they are yodeling "hello" every time they greet you.

Or better yet - You all fought 2 world wars... for that thing? Enough Britain bashing ?
[Hopefully nothing that stepped o'er the line ]

Nah, way too nice.

It's a pirate colony. A rocky island with too few foxes, so they have to hunt people on other continents. And then their repressed envy about not having invented nazism first. Their non-economy that has derivatives and children's literature as its only exports. The high variance in the attractiveness of British women. The hilarity of them being soooo a catholic society but being in complete denial about that fact.

It's really not that hard. And i have not even brought up soccer yet.

The same could be said during both world wars. (America was your real rival, the baby puny Brits couldn't do anything)

This is unintentionally funny.

England - where soccer participation is practically universal. It may be the same in West Germany too. For all I know.

Hey, if you can't be happy about the triumph that was UEFA 2000's Group A, that's hardly our fault.

 

[Leoreth]

It's really not that hard. And i have not even brought up soccer yet.

This always reminds me of the following alleged exchange between Germany's then chancellor Kohl and Margaret Thatcher after the the football world championship 1990:

Kohl: "Seems like we beat you at your national sport for the third time now."
Thatcher: "So? We managed to beat you at your national sport twice already!"

 

[metatron]

This always reminds me of the following alleged exchange between Germany's then chancellor Kohl and Margaret Thatcher after the the football world championship 1990:

Kohl: "Seems like we beat you at your national sport for the third time now."
Thatcher: "So? We managed to beat you at your national sport twice already!"

Well, it's not exactly a clear hit, but since you managed to bring up Maggie it may as well count as bashing, i suppose.

 

[Leoreth]

Thatcher obviously doesn't count in Britain's favour, but that doesn't mean you cannot appreciate her witty remarks.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

True.
I can appreciate Churchill's wit and still acknowledge that he only looks like a decent human being when compared to Hitler or Stalin.

 

[Dachs]

Germany felt it was surrounded by the allies and that it's only good friend was Austria-Hungary so when Serbian nationalists killed the heir to the Austrian throne Germany gave a "blank check" to Austria saying we'll support what ever moves you make. Austria, thus emboldened, sent an ulimatium to Serbia with loads of conditions they could never accept even though the Serbian government had nothing to do with the terrorist group which had assassinated the Arch Duke. Russia, feeling it was the protector of the slavic people, told Serbia they would go to war with Austria to protect Serbia. Since Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary it had to declare war on Russia and since France was allied with Russia it declared war on Germany and Austria Hungary while offering help to Serbia. Italy was allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary but didn't want to go to war with France so they dishonored their alliance and stayed neutral for a time (besides there was nothing to gain by Italy in a war with France or Russia but it did want land from Austria-Hungary). Britain didn't really want to get involved and was dragging it's feet pointing out it didn't have an alliance with Russia and it's treaty with France was defensive only but that France had declared war on Germany.

The UK finally got involved any way though because Germany invaded Belgium to get into France and the UK had signed a treaty 80 years before with Belgium promising to help the country should they ever get invaded. Germany looked around for more allies as they felt outnumbered and spent several weeks convincing the Ottomans to join their side in exchange for the sale of modern equipment and a return of land previously taken by the British in Egypt and the Russians in the Caucasus. The Bulgarians decided they wanted to press their claim to what is now Macedonia which meant going to war with Serbia & Russia but getting help from the Ottomans. Meanwhile The Rumanians, backed by the Russians declared war on the entire central powers hoping to gain territory from Austria Hungary.

Sigh. There's so much wrong with this, mixed with a fair amount of right, that I'm not going to expend the energy to correct it all - again - unless I really really have to.

Interesting. How much role did Tsar Nicholas have in directing Russia's foreign policy? Is there an individual responsible or was it the Russian Foreign Ministry? So a hypothetical victorious Imperial Russia would look like what? Control the Black Sea and the Straits. Probably control Persian Azarbaijan and Gilan. Presumably Galicia from Austria. What about Eastern Prussia? Was it conceivable of a Russia that reached the Oder?

It varied. The tsar's hand can rarely be seen in the day-to-day diplomatic maneuvers of both sides, and he certainly did not formulate policy in a coherent or consistent manner. But his choice of men in his council of ministers, and his ultimate right of supreme authority and capability to theoretically reverse any decision his underlings made, both played a key political role.

For example: for some time until the spring of 1914, the preeminent figure in the council of ministers was V. K. Kokovtsev, who, while Francophilic, proposed, in general, to only take offensive actions against the Central Powers if France or Russia itself were actually threatened by war. This led to Kokovtsev basically disavowing the actions of Nikolai Hartwig, the Russian ambassador to Serbia, who created the Balkan League as a weapon against the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, unleashing the First Balkan War and fundamentally altering the strategic calculus in the peninsula. While other council members, e.g. the minister of war, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, and the minister of agriculture, Aleksandr Krivoshein, suggested that Russia mobilize in response to the crisis, Kokovtsev argued that such a step would be interpreted by the Central Powers as an effective declaration of war and successfully prevented the orders from being sent. (Which is one reason that the Russian claims that they did not realize that mobilization would be viewed as such by Germany in July 1914 are so fantastic.) Kokovtsev eventually lost his chairmanship, however, although he remained a minister with considerable influence. Instead, Krivoshein gained the chairmanship, and it was under his theoretical auspices that the Russians navigated the July Crisis. One might interpret this in the light of the tsar's opinion about the handling of the Balkan Wars, although in reality other concerns were bound up in it as well - personal politics, the interaction between the council and the duma, performance by Krivoshein and Kokovtsev in their actual portfolios, and so on: the point is that the tsar was the one who made the call about the change in personnel, and that change had a real effect on the council's response to diplomatic crises.

In practice, however, the prime mover behind Russia's war plans and maneuverings was Sergei Sazonov, the aforementioned Foreign Minister. Sazonov, although he consulted with the council and the tsar - and it must be stated that neither the council nor the tsar can be said to have opposed what he did - pretty much acted as though he had supreme authority during July 1914. It was he who formulated the Entente response to the pending Austro-Hungarian démarche to Serbia in conjunction with the visiting French president Raymond Poincaré. He even went so far as to actually issue orders to the Russian finance and war ministers preparatory to war. Sazonov continued to be the chief architect of Russian diplomacy, and arguably war policy, until the summer of 1916.

As for a victorious Russia, the Russian program for Eastern Europe, as enunciated by Sazonov to the British and French ambassadors on 14 September 1914, would have included Austrian Galicia for certain, as well as Bukovina and Austrian Silesia. From Germany, Sazonov proposed to take East Prussia, Posen, and most of Silesia. Not quite a border on the Oder, but nearly so. Sazonov's revision of the Sykes-Picot Agreement - which really ought to include Sazonov's name in the title, because he was more important in its final formula than either the British or French signatories - would have given Russia control of Iranian Azerbaijan, Kurdistan up to Mosul, and "Turkish Armenia" up to Giresun on the Black Sea coastline, to a line running just short of Sivas, Elâzığ, and Diyarbakır. Russia would also control a zone around the Straits, including Constantinople, along with a railroad connecting Ankara to Sivas and Trabzon.

Here are the proposed Russian claims - accepted by Britain and France - as enunciated by Sazonov:

Please pardon any map errors; the broad strokes, at least, are right, but I'm lazy and so there may be quite a few pixels out of place.

 

[fret]

Love this thread.

The moment people start bashing you, that's when you know you're brilliant.

 

[Gucumatz]

Love this thread.

The moment people start bashing you, that's when you know you're brilliant.

Except for British Football. That has never been brilliant

 

[Virote_Considon]

Being British means driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then on the way home grabbing a Turkish kebab or an Indian take-away, to sit on a Swedish sofa and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.

But most of all it means being suspicious of anything foreign.

Irish pubs? I think they're more of an American thing aren't they? I've seen like one before in my life over here.