"Germany Is Responsible For WWI."

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The invasion of Belgium only affected the entry in the war of Great Britain. Germany had already declared war on Russia three days ago and on France the day before they invaded Belgium. The point of no return was already crossed by then.

I've already posted this before, but I really seriously suggest having a look at this presentation to have a clearer picture of the events (got straight to 16m00s to skip the intro):


That or get "The Guns of August".

Actually "The Guns of August" is 50 years old and missed to see the entire picture.

If someone would like to read a really good book about the subject which is published most recently and written by a master of his subject, than i can prefer only "Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. The man is lecturer in Cambridge and wrote several great books in the last decade, including a history about Prussia. It is quite funny, because the man is Australian and in Germany itself, he was criticized because he saw less guilt in Germany, than we Germans after two World wars want to believe. The national guilt after this century is so deep in the heads of the Germans, that a German author could never write such a brilliant book.

Reviews and short summaries:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n23/thomas-...-foolish-thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/bo...1914.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...r-clark-review

[ShockBlast]

I think that there can be goals in wars that aren't always summed up by neat territorial acquisitions.

Like what?Getting past glory?Germany wiped the floor with France and it became Europe`s Continental Power, France wanted that rank back in addition to Elsass Lothringen.

[Stavroforos]

Actually "The Guns of August" is 50 years old and missed to see the entire picture.

If someone would like to read a really good book about the subject which is published most recently and written by a master of his subject, than i can prefer only "Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. The man is lecturer in Cambridge and wrote several great books in the last decade, including a history about Prussia. It is quite funny, because the man is Australian and in Germany itself, he was criticized because he saw less guilt in Germany, than we Germans after two World wars want to believe. The national guilt after this century is so deep in the heads of the Germans, that a German author could never write such a brilliant book.

Reviews and short summaries:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n23/thomas-...-foolish-thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/bo...1914.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...r-clark-review

The problem of WWII was that it created guilt for something Germans shouldn't have felt guilty about, or at least no more guilty than any other major power. The guilt of Germany and the German people for WWII and the Holocaust had nothing to do with WWI.

[ShockBlast]

The problem of WWII was that it created guilt for something Germans shouldn't have felt guilty about, or at least no more guilty than any other major power. The guilt of Germany and the German people for WWII and the Holocaust had nothing to do with WWI.

Took the words out of my mouth.

[Sharpe]

German desire for self-affirmation and to retain hegemony over mainland Europe after the success of the Franco-Prussian war contributed to the mechanics of the First World War’s outbreak. Imanuel Geiss argues that the Triple Entente was perceived in Germany as “wicked encirclement” who wished to “strangle innocent Germany” when in actual fact it only had the aim of containing the expansionist Germany, not invading them.

But then again this isolationism was self-imposed, young upstart Germany was still swayed by Junkers and Junker sentiment.

Imperial policy (of all the major nations) orchestrated the war years and years before it even happened. I'm pretty sure this was the meat of the Fisher thesis.

[Mangalore]

Technically if Germany did not declare war on Russia, France probably would not got drag into war as I remember its alliance with Russia was a defensive one. Similarly, Germany also did not need to declare war on Russia as Russia would probably declare war on AH anyway, which automatically brought Germany into war without a damned formal DoW and made Russia looked like aggressor.

Well, Russia had issued a mobilization and Germany confronted this with an ultimatum to cease doing that because a mobilization was pretext to war (debatably even an act of war allowing a preemptive strike). You are essentially suggesting Germany should not have told Russia to stop starting a war.



Overall Germany's foreign diplomacy in the July crisis is an unmitigated disaster only matched by how the Brits managed to doze of and sleepwalk into the war (as the only side with no stakes in the conflict so the only side to have diplomatic free reign).
The best case for Germany not planning this is how totally unprepared the entire government and military was for that war. This goes for virtually all Great Powers. If you check the dates you have governments frantically responding to what was going on. This age was before the internet and global communications so you at best had some telegraph lines sending letters here and there with no big info on what the hell was going on. Things made worse by traditional summer breaks in the governments meaning the senior administration was cluttered all over the place being another reason why the crisis escalated with so little attempts at solving it.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

France's goal was to destroy German military pressure in the West and to keep their alliances intact (which can only be accomplished by making sure your allies are alive). But the French were not prepared to fight over Alsace, they tried to avoid a war or even a direct diplomatic confrontation over Alsace. That they were sore over Alsace is true but they would never have made war over Germany to get Alsace Lorraine as that was relatively trivial.

As I said a more important goal was to beat Germany all together and keep them from pounding Russia.
Assuming the Germans do not invade Belgium then is it still certain that Britain will not join the war? If France is defeated and the Germans have their fleet intact then how does this suit Britain's interests? Most likely Britain might opt to join the war later on anyway, like America, Rumania or Italy did, as long as Germany gains no quick victories over the French.

[Cyclops]

The declarations of war and their order are a little bit of a red herring, they were the end point of locked-in mobilisations, so its more a question of who mobilised first. IIRC the Russians precipitated the war by mobilising first and the Tsar leven lied to the Kaiser stating he woulkd halt the process, making indecisive blundering look like well planned treachery.

I have little doubt the Germans were locked into a hostile position vs Russia that nearly sparked into war several times (eg the mobilisation in 1911 that so embarrased Russia) and France due to inept diplomacy over the previous decades, so once Russia mobilised against AH German entry was inevitable and because they could mobilise faster than any other country they were able to strike France first.

Russia turned a local Balkan dispute between AH and Serbia into WW1 by mobilising. However French and German mutual hostility (and even English naval escalation) played their part in logjamming international diplomacy to the point most major players were inevitably sucked in.

If you want a single scapegoat Serbia will do, an Russia was the Great power that took the first inevitable and fatal step into war. However history is just not that simple.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The declarations of war and their order are a little bit of a red herring, they were the end point of locked-in mobilisations, so its more a question of who mobilised first. IIRC the Russians precipitated the war by mobilising first and the Tsar leven lied to the Kaiser stating he woulkd halt the process, making indecisive blundering look like well planned treachery.

I have little doubt the Germans were locked into a hostile position vs Russia that nearly sparked into war several times (eg the mobilisation in 1911 that so embarrased Russia) and France due to inept diplomacy over the previous decades, so once Russia mobilised against AH German entry was inevitable and because they could mobilise faster than any other country they were able to strike France first.

Russia turned a local Balkan dispute between AH and Serbia into WW1 by mobilising. However French and German mutual hostility (and even English naval escalation) played their part in logjamming international diplomacy to the point most major players were inevitably sucked in.

If you want a single scapegoat Serbia will do, an Russia was the Great power that took the first inevitable and fatal step into war. However history is just not that simple.

What i find really interesting is the aspect of "Sleepwalkers" to start analyzing the events long before the assassination at Sarajevo. Serbia's nationalism and several terrorist attacks before does not make Austria's reactions overreacting. The so called ultimatum would be today pretty much accepted by the world community and Serbia going amok repeated itself in the 90s. I don't want to blame Serbia alone, but it has at least for the Balkan the main responsibility for the events.
Something else Clark is analyzing is that the alliance situation from 1914 was nothing inevitable. The alliances changed so often in these times and and looking in to slightly earlier diplomatic events, it was not necessarily that Germany would have been the archenemy it was to Britain 1914. Britain had actually bigger problems with Russia, which threatened the security of India etc. Unfortunately there were a few people in the British Government which were anti-German at the time as Ferguson has written in his most recent book. I know it is controversial, but that's a fact that can't be denied. On the other side a pro-German finance minister in Russia was dismissed shortly before the crisis which lead to the war and the Russian foreign minister was strong anti-German. Without the opposition of the finance minister, the mood shifted to anti-German, something the German Government didn't realized, as Clark writes. The Tzar could very well meant it, when he wrote the Kaiser, that he wouldn't mobilize, but eventually had to capitulate to the mood in his cabinet.

The question is why did this little conflict over Serbia, where Austria had all right to dealt with, lead to this major conflict, when several others, some of them only months before, did not? Like the Morocco Crisis 1905/6 and 1911.

[Cyclops]

...
The question is why did this little conflict over Serbia, where Austria had all right to dealt with, lead to this major conflict, when several others, some of them only months before, did not? Like the Morocco Crisis 1905/6 and 1911.

Indeed, I guess the German mood of despair was lightened by their little win in 1911, so they were prepared to push harder, and the Serbian bloody minded courage that served them well in three Balkan wars was involved this time, and AH took a hit to the personal pride of the ruling family (not so much Franz Josef personally IIRC but certainly the German speaking Imperial court, as well as the ethnically sensitive Hungarian Diet).

So if the issue was just France and Germany there's a good chance cool heads prevail (as in 1911) and even Russia in that case shows it can be realistic. Its the Balkan twist (and perhaps just the ripening of paranoia and the sense of Gotterdammerung in Germany, plus revanchism finally boiling in France) that cooks this goose.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The way the Allies handled the Central Powers after the war is what ed up the world. Assuming that Germany was fomenting a war for hostile take over either way the Allies humiliated Germany, wrecked Central and Eastern Europe and cut up the Middle East amongst themselves.
Whether the Central Powers would have done the same I don't know, but it couldn't have been worse than what the Allies did. Maybe Germany would take some border strip from France or some territory from Russia or even a colony from Britain but that would hardly constitutes the horrible mess that the Allies made.

[Stavroforos]

I thought the "allies were too tough on Germany" theory was shown to be false already on TWC, the same way it is no longer really supported by those who studied interwar Germany.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Perhaps not to the level that was believed but the Treaty of Versailles was pretty rough. No Saarland, no Danzig and no military is a pretty rough deal. Even then I'm not talking exclusively about Germany seeing as how there were lots of others who got defeated.

[Stavroforos]

The treaty the Germans imposed on the French after the Franco - Prussian war was much harsher, yet the French didn't open up death camps and invade all of Europe.

[Euphoric]

I thought the "allies were too tough on Germany" theory was shown to be false already on TWC, the same way it is no longer really supported by those who studied interwar Germany.

I would dispute this. The massive debt incurred by Germany was so crushing and the subsequent inflated Mark was so high that the Weimer government had to crash its own currency to stay solvent. Those sorts of economic conditions precipitate instability. So thank Clemenceau for WWII, because he was the direct cause.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

World War 2 was not about a massive continental cleansing of every defeated enemy across Europe. The Germans weren't even trying to conquer France in 1939 and likely never would have invaded France had the invasion of Poland not resulted in a World War. Besides the Treaty of 1871 didn't cause France to go as broke as it did nor were the terms in any way crippling towards France.

So I have no idea what you are talking about Stav.

[Aymer de Valence]

I rest easy at night knowing Germany can never again take pride in their military history as Britain and France still do today. I love seeing German flags waving at The Proms, trying to salvage some glory which they can never again celebrate at home for fear of being vilified as Nazis, even though that was only a tiny period in their history. One of the legacies of the WW2 victors which still holds true...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well I for one, and I have made this no secret, that Germany should not be considered guilty for fomenting aggressive wars in 1939. If their crimes are regarding minorities (which as I have pointed out the Allies took relatively no interest in, seeing as how Nuremberg that section didn't even take up one fourth of the time) then that is fine I suppose. But to say that Germany was out to conquer a whole bunch of countries in WW2? What? Aggressive war really was the main part of Allied worries following VE Day, that's what Germany was prosecuted for. Minorities was extra.

If anyone really wanted I guess I could rebut Copperknicker's post right here.

[Stavroforos]

I would dispute this. The massive debt incurred by Germany was so crushing and the subsequent inflated Mark was so high that the Weimer government had to crash its own currency to stay solvent. Those sorts of economic conditions precipitate instability. So thank Clemenceau for WWII, because he was the direct cause.

I can't quite remember who it was, but we had a TWC member in another one of these threads post the facts of the German war debt, of which little was paid, and which didn't play as large a role in the destruction of the German economy as was taught.

World War 2 was not about a massive continental cleansing of every defeated enemy across Europe. The Germans weren't even trying to conquer France in 1939 and likely never would have invaded France had the invasion of Poland not resulted in a World War. Besides the Treaty of 1871 didn't cause France to go as broke as it did nor were the terms in any way crippling towards France.

So I have no idea what you are talking about Stav.

So, because Germany didn't have ambitions in France (which goes against the Shame of Versailles hypothesis), they didn't have ambitions of conquest and ethnic cleansing? Are we talking about WWII here?

[Cyclops]

Well I for one, and I have made this no secret, that Germany should not be considered guilty for fomenting aggressive wars in 1939. ....

Erm Hitler wrote a book preaching war with Poland and the Soviet Union, and built an army to do that. Then he did it.

I can't see any merit in your statement.