Commy
Prince
Yes, of course. Because Russia ALWAYS was, is and will be the main enemy of Europe, isn't it?
Why is it said that Germany started WW1?
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
Yes, of course. Because Russia ALWAYS was, is and will be the main enemy of Europe, isn't it?
Yeeek
Seizing The Day
Another re-run of WW1 in any senarios thought of would never happens. For the simple reason that now, most of the players are sitting on piles of nukes. None of said countries would dare to enter open warefar with one another.
Lets imagine a second that Russia declare War on France. Of course, France as a lot less nukes that Russia has. However, enough to annihiliate all of it. Wich has more to lose? Russia. I picked Russia as an example but i could have chosen the USA. Same thing.
Anyway, i really doubt any major conflicts in the futur will happens between nowadays major countries (USA, Russia, EU). I also doubt that Russia would do anything if Iran was to be targeted by the USA.
Lets imagine a second that Russia declare War on France. Of course, France as a lot less nukes that Russia has. However, enough to annihiliate all of it. Wich has more to lose? Russia. I picked Russia as an example but i could have chosen the USA. Same thing.
Anyway, i really doubt any major conflicts in the futur will happens between nowadays major countries (USA, Russia, EU). I also doubt that Russia would do anything if Iran was to be targeted by the USA.
Verbose
Deity
You don't need nukes to avoid a run-up to a conflict like WWI. Just not having secret treaties (makes the calculations of others soooo much easier) and not running international politics as constant brinkmanship cum chicken-race will do the trick.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
German soldiers fired the first shots of the war when they invaded Belgium, so they started it. It would be very interesting to read what a 1920's era german history book has to say about the outbreak of war though. I suppose they would say some terrorist bullet was the real first shot.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, actually the first shots fired were by a Serbian fort firing on Austrian ships on the Danube...
Adler
Adler
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
That sounds pretty unlikely, do you have a reference?
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Wow, thanks for completely missing the point.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Yes, I have. Janusz Piekalkievicz, Der Erste Weltkrieg. Also at first Austria declared war on Serbia, the Russia on Austria and Germany on Russia and Serbia before war was declared on France. So the war was in no way started by Germany first.
Adler
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
Sorry Adler, I only read English. But I concede your point; the first shot I can find is a July 29th Austrian artillery bombardment of Belgrade.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
In the library today I just happened across The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson. Have not started reading yet but from the back cover...
The Pity of War makes a simple and provocative argument: the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England's fault. According to Ferguson, England entered into war based on naive assumptions of German aims, thereby transforming a Continental conflict into a world war, which it then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement...
The Pity of War makes a simple and provocative argument: the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England's fault. According to Ferguson, England entered into war based on naive assumptions of German aims, thereby transforming a Continental conflict into a world war, which it then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement...
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
World war 1 is a strange one because the countries of europe at been at an uneasy peace and the months leading up to the war were some of the most peaceful times ever in europe, yes germany and britain had been in a naval race but at the same time they were each others leading trading partner. Also at the time the countries were more worried of domestic issues, in Britain the Ulstermen had just started a civil war. It proberly started as a world war because of germanys moblisation plans. For example, frances plan for war was to get all troops to the german and belgain border to see where the attack would come from. Geramnys plan was for the troops to go straight into france. Therefore when germany moblised it meant war.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, Germany mobilised, because Russia did so. And knowing the alliance with France Germany had of course sent troops to the west. The French wanted the war at that time. The only mistake Germany made was to attack Belgium first. Otherwise the French would have had to do so. So in the end it meant war when Russia mobilised.
But indeed we should here also discuss the role of king Edward VII., whose relationship to Germany and especially to Wilhelm lead to the alliance with France. So a family trouble was one cause for war!
Adler
But indeed we should here also discuss the role of king Edward VII., whose relationship to Germany and especially to Wilhelm lead to the alliance with France. So a family trouble was one cause for war!
Adler
PTM
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 93
I would conjecture that it isn't simply about who pulled the trigger first. One must look at the events leading up to the war to determine guilt (if such a thing is possible).
Germany, since it's inception, feared encirclement. It's location in the heartland of Europe meant that it would be possible for an alliance between the Russians and the French to completely surround and annihilate them. German leadership (particularly war advisor Moltke) felt that war was an inevitability given this state (and the explosive nature of the Balkans, with whom Russia apparently had vested [racial?] interests).
Germany pursued an increasingly belligerent foreign policy designed to bolster its position as a world power. Thus, the other nations - France, Britain, and Russia - began to percieve it as a threat. In this way, the fear of encirclement became a self-fulfilling prophecy as the Triple Entente was born.
Germany, now alone and isolated, looked desperately south for allies. Only two options existed: Italy and Austria-Hungary. Unfortunately Italy was viewed as unreliable, and had abandoned Germany in a colonial crisis only months earlier. So they moved closer to Austria-Hungary. They began to feel that their existence was contingent on the continuation of the world power status of Austria-Hungary and, therefore, became willing to do *anything* to protect themselves and Austria-Hungary, right or wrong.
When Gavrillo Princip assassinated the archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Hapsburg empire sent an angry list of demands which could never have been met - a pretext for war. Meanwhile, all the nations of Europe had been engaged in a dangerous arms race for some time, thanks to the reality that Europe had become a competition between two rival alliance blocs. Knowing that if Russia intervened on behalf of Serbia a world war would start, Germany nonetheless issued a carte blanche to Austria-Hungary.
Why? I would argue that they never truly believed Russia would intervene, especially on the behalf of regicides. Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia existed as the last true monarchical powers in Europe; indeed, Franz Ferdinand, the very same who had just been slain, had intended on a policy of uniting the three nations to champion the cause of the concept of monarchy. Germany also felt that Russia was woefully unprepared for war, and that her ally, France, lacked sufficient artillery and infantry reserves to mobilize.
They were wrong. Unfortunately war started. A war nobody really wanted, but that became reality because everybody felt it would. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Germany, since it's inception, feared encirclement. It's location in the heartland of Europe meant that it would be possible for an alliance between the Russians and the French to completely surround and annihilate them. German leadership (particularly war advisor Moltke) felt that war was an inevitability given this state (and the explosive nature of the Balkans, with whom Russia apparently had vested [racial?] interests).
Germany pursued an increasingly belligerent foreign policy designed to bolster its position as a world power. Thus, the other nations - France, Britain, and Russia - began to percieve it as a threat. In this way, the fear of encirclement became a self-fulfilling prophecy as the Triple Entente was born.
Germany, now alone and isolated, looked desperately south for allies. Only two options existed: Italy and Austria-Hungary. Unfortunately Italy was viewed as unreliable, and had abandoned Germany in a colonial crisis only months earlier. So they moved closer to Austria-Hungary. They began to feel that their existence was contingent on the continuation of the world power status of Austria-Hungary and, therefore, became willing to do *anything* to protect themselves and Austria-Hungary, right or wrong.
When Gavrillo Princip assassinated the archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Hapsburg empire sent an angry list of demands which could never have been met - a pretext for war. Meanwhile, all the nations of Europe had been engaged in a dangerous arms race for some time, thanks to the reality that Europe had become a competition between two rival alliance blocs. Knowing that if Russia intervened on behalf of Serbia a world war would start, Germany nonetheless issued a carte blanche to Austria-Hungary.
Why? I would argue that they never truly believed Russia would intervene, especially on the behalf of regicides. Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia existed as the last true monarchical powers in Europe; indeed, Franz Ferdinand, the very same who had just been slain, had intended on a policy of uniting the three nations to champion the cause of the concept of monarchy. Germany also felt that Russia was woefully unprepared for war, and that her ally, France, lacked sufficient artillery and infantry reserves to mobilize.
They were wrong. Unfortunately war started. A war nobody really wanted, but that became reality because everybody felt it would. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
That's an excellent book, but the back cover simplifies the argument vastly. Ferguson argues that Britain was wrong to enter the war, but not that Britain bore sole responsibility - only that she unecessarily spread the conflict.
Germany is normally blamed because of the famous "blank cheque," the letter sent to the Austrian authorities encouraging decisive action against Serbia with an unconditional (hence blank) offer of German aid to cover the consequences. Austria had no chance against Russia on her own, so the "blank cheque" was necessary to reassure the Austrians that they would not be caught bending if they delivered an unexceptable ultimatum to Serbia - which they promptly did. Why Germany did this is anyone's guess, but the likeliest explanation is the confusion in the government and Wilhelm's habit of brinkmanship. He was probably hoping to repeat the Buelow-Aerenthal manoevre of 1908, when Germany and Austria forced Russia to back down over Austria's annexation of Serbian-claimed territory.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, at first we have to see the situation of 1871: Bismarck managed it to isolate France and to be allied with all other European powers. But as the other were not allied, too, he had to keep up the system alive, he had to avoid wars. And although he managed it to avoid WW1 several times, his system was dying. Indeed Russia was in some way p*ssed of when not getting everything they wanted in the Balcan conference. Wilhelm is criticised much for not prolonging the treaty with Russia but that was dead anyway. So France used the chance to get rid of the isolation. And although Germany was the only one to help Russia in the war with Japan, at least with their fleet, an understanding was possible and Russia was in no way interested in war with Germany. Also the German foreign diplomacy was in no way as martial as it is described. For example the so called Panthersprung nach Agadir, the visit of the old gunboat Panther in Agadir during the second Marocco crise, which was also started by the French, was in no way a sign of strength. The ship was armed with a single 10,5 cm gun as the biggest gun and a few smaller guns. How they should enforce something against a much larger French army? Anyway in 1914 war seemed impossible. But then Pricip fired 2 shots killing millions. Germany gave the card balnche indeed, but only to back up Austria in negotiations. When it came obvious that Austria did not want to rely on negotiations, Germany took the carde blanche away. But then it was too late, as Russia could not leave Serbia, for reasons I laready explained, nor was France willingly not to use a chance to revenge the peace of Frankfurt. The diplomacy of all states failed dramatically here. But indeed Britain and Germany were the only ones attempting to stop a war.
Adler
Adler
Verbose
Deity
I'm sure Adler will have a very eloquent rebuttal for some of this. Nevertheless...
Your dismissive attitude towards Russia here might almost be an echo of the period in question. Ah, the arrogance of power...
It was one of the most anticipated conflicts in history. When and how was the only murky bits. A big showdown had been looming for years, to the point where the Russians seem to have thought" To hell with this! If it's war, then war it is." Which was unanticipated by the German leadership (since they took fright last time, the gutless Russians should do it this time as well).
The Russian "pre-mobilisation" set it off. As soon as that was out of the bag, you mobilise or stand to lose the war you don't want to fight. The German mobilisation was key for the western powers, because it was directed against Russia and France alike. Even if Germany might have preferred mobilising only against Russia, that contingency seems not to have been planned for. And if it had, a Germany with no mobilised army on the French border would have been open for attack.
Even if the Germans might mobilise, while telling the French they had no actual beef with them, France would feel obliged to break out the guns simply because the Germans had, should they somehow otherwise agree not to fight.
On the whole France was hardly happy about the situation, unlike common misconceptions about the French enthusiams for the war. They'd done their math. They knew they were outnumbered and outgunned. It just so happened that the line-up was the French dream-scenario for a war, if there had to be a war at all.
And as I said, a big show-down had been anticipated for quite some time, so there was a feeling of inevitability that made events self-fulfilling. That's where you get the French amdassador to Russia Maurice Paléologue egging the Russians on to fight without orders or communication with Paris. The whole situation was a mess, with people acting without orders, mix-ups and misunderstandings, and something as venerable as the British House of Commons unaware of the exact nature of secret treaties made with France.
I mean, the odd man out was Britain, which everyone hoped would jump their way. When the secret British-French treaties, and Belgium, tipped the scale in French favour (as the French anticipated), it again turned out the German leadership had badly miscalculated. The spent the rest of the war blaming England ("England: Der ist Schuld!")
So, the Germans weren't war-mongering fanatics, at least not more than anyone else at the time. The international system of alliances was unfortunately set up in such a fashion that few mistakes were allowed, if war was to be avoided indefinatly, and here it was a string German miscalculations about the course of action to be taken by the other major powers that landed the whole thing in the trenches.
It could have been someone else of the major power, but this was how things went down.
Because the German leadership after Bismarck didn't quite grasp the necessity of having Russia on its side, to the point of giving them whatever they wanted in the Ballkans. Blaming Russia for the German failure to realise its dependancy on the Russian good graces isn't very convincing.
Your dismissive attitude towards Russia here might almost be an echo of the period in question. Ah, the arrogance of power...
They weren't really worse than anyone else, yes
Because if France shots the crap out of the Panther, it's war. The actual power of the vessel was irrelevant. It's the presence that matters, and the possibility of the German army on the march and the Hochseeflotte under steam for France.
Really?
It was one of the most anticipated conflicts in history. When and how was the only murky bits. A big showdown had been looming for years, to the point where the Russians seem to have thought" To hell with this! If it's war, then war it is." Which was unanticipated by the German leadership (since they took fright last time, the gutless Russians should do it this time as well).
Germany tried to stop the war only when they realised they had miscalculated. Badly. Because the machinery was already rolling into war.
The Russian "pre-mobilisation" set it off. As soon as that was out of the bag, you mobilise or stand to lose the war you don't want to fight. The German mobilisation was key for the western powers, because it was directed against Russia and France alike. Even if Germany might have preferred mobilising only against Russia, that contingency seems not to have been planned for. And if it had, a Germany with no mobilised army on the French border would have been open for attack.
Even if the Germans might mobilise, while telling the French they had no actual beef with them, France would feel obliged to break out the guns simply because the Germans had, should they somehow otherwise agree not to fight.
On the whole France was hardly happy about the situation, unlike common misconceptions about the French enthusiams for the war. They'd done their math. They knew they were outnumbered and outgunned. It just so happened that the line-up was the French dream-scenario for a war, if there had to be a war at all.
And as I said, a big show-down had been anticipated for quite some time, so there was a feeling of inevitability that made events self-fulfilling. That's where you get the French amdassador to Russia Maurice Paléologue egging the Russians on to fight without orders or communication with Paris. The whole situation was a mess, with people acting without orders, mix-ups and misunderstandings, and something as venerable as the British House of Commons unaware of the exact nature of secret treaties made with France.
I mean, the odd man out was Britain, which everyone hoped would jump their way. When the secret British-French treaties, and Belgium, tipped the scale in French favour (as the French anticipated), it again turned out the German leadership had badly miscalculated. The spent the rest of the war blaming England ("England: Der ist Schuld!")
So, the Germans weren't war-mongering fanatics, at least not more than anyone else at the time. The international system of alliances was unfortunately set up in such a fashion that few mistakes were allowed, if war was to be avoided indefinatly, and here it was a string German miscalculations about the course of action to be taken by the other major powers that landed the whole thing in the trenches.
It could have been someone else of the major power, but this was how things went down.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Oh, you can see in the future, and so I fullfil your prophecy:
1. Germany wanted no more wars. Bismarck very well knew it could turn into a world war. So it tried to be the "honest broker". So he wasn't able to give all to Russia. He wanted to find a good compromise. And as the Austrians were not that happy either as they had also to step back he seemed to be successful. That the Czar wanted more but could not get, even if Bismarck was willing to do so, you can't blame Bismarck. He managed to keep up such an alliance system for over twenty years. And that's more than most other politicians could have done.
My attitude concerning Russia is not dismissive. I only criticise them in this forum because of their role starting WW1 and the role in the last stages of ww2. I do not see anything else.
2. Yep, but a small gunboat en route to Germany for repairs arriving at a little port in South Marocco as a big sign of power?!? Come on! The ship needed coals and had to coal in Marocco anyway. It was indeed sent to Agadir not to enforce a crise too much. Also it was and is accepted that in time of crises warships can look what is going on to help citizens in trouble for example or to collect informations. At last it is surprising that there were no signs of an uproar in France. The French press even only noted that in a small article if they did at all. Indeed only a British message made the visit of a small gunboat equal to the visit of the whole Hochseeflotte!
3. Good points. However some remarks: At first the situation just before the war was so explosive, that a French socialist demanding a calming down was shot and the killers released at the end (although admitted in 1919) without punishment. Or that the French ambassador in St. Petersburg eagerly accepted a bag of Alsatian earth.
Also the German carde blanche was never thought to be for a war at any case and was retreated after Austria was unwilling to enter negotiations. Too late indeed. But even Wilhelm made on the very eve before the war a last desperate attempt to rescue peace by telegraphing his cousin. As we all know, he failed.
Adler
1. Germany wanted no more wars. Bismarck very well knew it could turn into a world war. So it tried to be the "honest broker". So he wasn't able to give all to Russia. He wanted to find a good compromise. And as the Austrians were not that happy either as they had also to step back he seemed to be successful. That the Czar wanted more but could not get, even if Bismarck was willing to do so, you can't blame Bismarck. He managed to keep up such an alliance system for over twenty years. And that's more than most other politicians could have done.
My attitude concerning Russia is not dismissive. I only criticise them in this forum because of their role starting WW1 and the role in the last stages of ww2. I do not see anything else.
2. Yep, but a small gunboat en route to Germany for repairs arriving at a little port in South Marocco as a big sign of power?!? Come on! The ship needed coals and had to coal in Marocco anyway. It was indeed sent to Agadir not to enforce a crise too much. Also it was and is accepted that in time of crises warships can look what is going on to help citizens in trouble for example or to collect informations. At last it is surprising that there were no signs of an uproar in France. The French press even only noted that in a small article if they did at all. Indeed only a British message made the visit of a small gunboat equal to the visit of the whole Hochseeflotte!
3. Good points. However some remarks: At first the situation just before the war was so explosive, that a French socialist demanding a calming down was shot and the killers released at the end (although admitted in 1919) without punishment. Or that the French ambassador in St. Petersburg eagerly accepted a bag of Alsatian earth.
Also the German carde blanche was never thought to be for a war at any case and was retreated after Austria was unwilling to enter negotiations. Too late indeed. But even Wilhelm made on the very eve before the war a last desperate attempt to rescue peace by telegraphing his cousin. As we all know, he failed.
Adler
Verbose
Deity
I think it's a matter of what value was out on the Russian friendship. All things considered, not to get stuck with that two front war sooner or later, the conflict might have had have to bee taken then and there, with Germany fighting whomever for a Russia covering its back if needs be.
But that would be a Very unpalatbale scenario, so it's easy to see why Germany wouldn't.
It's an expenadable but useful gunboat then. The gunboat isn't just German, the gunboat represents Germany, no matter how impotent, if you fire at it you are firing at Germany. Not a nice prospect.
But sure, German military vessels turning up was more of an attention-grabber in the UK, nervously eying the German build up. The French were looking at demographics and getting their knickers in a bunch.
Poor Jean Jaurès (1859-1914). He wasn't "a socialist", he was The Socialist Leader. The gunman was a loon, acting on his own, but thinking he was "saving France" filled with the chauvinistic drivel of the author/politician Maurice Barrès the kind WWII made the world expect from the Germans (Blut und Boden-style), but which the French could do just as well at times.
Carl v.
Chieftain
The outbreak of WWI is the culmination of an international political development following the Kaisers dismissal of Fürst Otto von Bismarck from his cabinet. As Adler points out, the Fürst (as the Kaiser mentioned him) had been busy building a cobweb of treaties between the European powers until his dismissal in 1890. Despite growing nationalism and the following international tension throughout Europe, this system of treaties worked so well that they kept the European Great War at bay for 24 years after the Fürst’s retirement.
WWI was the war with no reason. Nobody really wanted it. They just wanted to flex their muscles and go home for dinner after the parade. I mean; The Kaiser was not eagerly preparing for war the summer of 1914, he was as usual on a longer holyday abroad, admiring the Norwegian fjords from his yacht. And when parts of the British fleet not were put back in the moth bags after the summer’s maneuvers, it was purely a private initiative. The British government had no reason to expect a major European clash this year. No one had. At least I have not heard of any sources pointing in that direction.
The escalation towards The Great War started with the dismissal of Fürst Bismarck. There were no one to care for his flock of treaties, and one by one they were snatched by the hawks. The following development can be regarded as an excellent example of an uncontrolled escalation. If the chain of events had been broken at one single point, it is doubtful a war had broken out. At least not in the summer of ’14.
In the years after the war, this uncontrolled escalation of international tension has been studied, and the result may have been the main reason why the Cuba-crises did not escalate into nuclear Armageddon. To break the chain of events, a clandestine direct contact was established between The White House and Kremlin. It succeeded, and the Soviet freighters en route to Cuba with nuclear missiles made a u-turn.
In my opinion, the question who was to blame for WWI, makes no sense if we ask for witch nation. If someone is to blame, it is all the men (OK, we count the Czarina too, but no more women) who did their duty and did not try to brake the chain of events in the ongoing escalation.
WWI was the war with no reason. Nobody really wanted it. They just wanted to flex their muscles and go home for dinner after the parade. I mean; The Kaiser was not eagerly preparing for war the summer of 1914, he was as usual on a longer holyday abroad, admiring the Norwegian fjords from his yacht. And when parts of the British fleet not were put back in the moth bags after the summer’s maneuvers, it was purely a private initiative. The British government had no reason to expect a major European clash this year. No one had. At least I have not heard of any sources pointing in that direction.
The escalation towards The Great War started with the dismissal of Fürst Bismarck. There were no one to care for his flock of treaties, and one by one they were snatched by the hawks. The following development can be regarded as an excellent example of an uncontrolled escalation. If the chain of events had been broken at one single point, it is doubtful a war had broken out. At least not in the summer of ’14.
In the years after the war, this uncontrolled escalation of international tension has been studied, and the result may have been the main reason why the Cuba-crises did not escalate into nuclear Armageddon. To break the chain of events, a clandestine direct contact was established between The White House and Kremlin. It succeeded, and the Soviet freighters en route to Cuba with nuclear missiles made a u-turn.
In my opinion, the question who was to blame for WWI, makes no sense if we ask for witch nation. If someone is to blame, it is all the men (OK, we count the Czarina too, but no more women) who did their duty and did not try to brake the chain of events in the ongoing escalation.
Similar threads
