# How Europe Went to War in 1914



## DonL (Oct 25, 2013)

For everyone who is interested in the complexity of how the WWI started.

The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914: Amazon.de: Christopher Clark: Englische Bücher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clark


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2013)

Best book I know of for explaining diplomatic actions leading to WWI.


----------



## DonL (Oct 26, 2013)

You can also add *The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 26, 2013)

im really looking forward to Sir Max Hastings new book _1914: Europe’s Tragedy_ due for release before Christmas. Its had some terrific reviews and apparently is unfraid about not being politically correct. I hope so


----------



## DonL (Oct 26, 2013)

So Authors like Christopher Clark, Sean McMeekin and Barbara Tuchman, which have given a very sophisticated and very deep researched view of the beginning of the World War I and didn't blame Germany alone for what happened, have written their books to be political correct?
Are they perhaps apologist?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 26, 2013)

Oh please DonL and Parsifal, don't start.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2013)

A classic. Unfortunately like many military history classics it isn't terribly accurate. You need archive data from eastern Europe to grasp the WWI big picture and most of those archives weren't available before Warsaw Pact broke up. 

"Guns of August" doesn't even make good use of German and Belgium military records. As John Mosier (Myth of the Great War) notes concerning Liege forts "A surprising amount of confusion surrounds the fall of these forts; when Barbara Tuchman summarizes the action there she gets the particulars wrong for every fort."


----------



## silence (Oct 26, 2013)

parsifal said:


> im really looking forward to Sir Max Hastings new book _1914: Europe’s Tragedy_ due for release before Christmas. Its had some terrific reviews and apparently is unfraid about not being politically correct. I hope so



Too many books, too little time in a man's life.


----------



## silence (Oct 26, 2013)

davebender said:


> A classic. Unfortunately like many military history classics it isn't terribly accurate. You need archive data from eastern Europe to grasp the WWI big picture and most of those archives weren't available before Warsaw Pact broke up.



This is a huge, huge issue for me these days. I'm at the point I always check the publication date - also any appendixes if they have content that I know could be wrong. Since I've become totally fascinated by the Eastern Front, God bless David Glantz!


----------



## DonL (Oct 26, 2013)

I agree silence,

David Glantz has set a new level ever written about the German - UDSSR war from 1941-1945.

But I take up the cudgels for the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, because it is a classic standard work and from the sources she had to hand, formidable.
To my opinion you have to read her book first and then you can read Clarks, McMeekin or whatever new book.

I have read Guns of August and The Sleepwarkers, but have already ordered both other mentioned books. But I had already heared a lot of July 1914 from Sean McMeekin and have followed the controversal discussion about his book.


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2013)

Me too. My rule of thumb is not to trust anything written about central and Eastern Europe that was published before 1990.

IMO David Glantz is the gold standard for history of WWII Russian front. 

Michael Reynolds does a fine job covering WWII Normandy and Ardennes. Like Glantz (and Terence Zuber for WWI) he provides a proper military analysis. Something sadly lacking from most popular military history books.

Rommel's Book "Infantry Attacks" does a pretty good job describing company and battalion level infantry combat during WWI.

There may be good accounts written in French or German but I'm not fluent enough in those languages to read them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Oh please DonL and Parsifal, don't start.



Don't hold your breath Marcel...


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 26, 2013)

All I know is, the Germans didn't sink Lithuania.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> All I know is, the Germans didn't sink Lithuania.


Sure that wasn't really Borduria that sank Lithuania and tried to blame it on Syldavia?


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 27, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Sure that wasn't really Borduria that sank Lithuania and tried to blame it on Syldavia?


All I know is, somebody here sunk my Lusitania thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> All I know is, somebody here sunk my Lusitania thread.


yep


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Sure that wasn't really Borduria that sank Lithuania and tried to blame it on Syldavia?



You sure it wasn't due to the actions of a Sicilian criminal mastermind (aided by a circus strongman and alcoholic swashbuckler) being paid by the Crown Prince of Florin to hijack the Lusitania and sink it in such a way that Guilder gets blamed, thus giving Florin the moral high ground in the war?


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2013)

Well, I think it could be interesting to discuss the start of WWI if everyone would leave their nationalistic bullshit behind. Could be very interesting and educational. But I guess this is not to be on this forum..... 

I've got the advantage I guess, we were neutral

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm up for that Marcel.
Always willing to learn.....

How about the other guys?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 27, 2013)

Sure!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2013)

Ill see if things can be done better this time around. Ive already given one apology, but I really should apologise to everyone else as well i guess. So there it is. 

The official histories are always a good start, but there are limits to what these accounts can give. They are always biased one way or another, some more than others.

Stuff linked to primary records is good, but even here, sometimes has to be verified by cross referencing. Its not easy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 27, 2013)

"...IMO David Glantz is the gold standard for history of WWII Russian front. "

Agree.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 27, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Well, I think it could be interesting to discuss the start of WWI if everyone would leave their nationalistic bullshit behind. Could be very interesting and educational. But I guess this is not to be on this forum.....
> 
> I've got the advantage I guess, we were neutral


Yeah, deal, I'm in. Just don't look at me. I didn't do it. I wasn't even in that neighborhood.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 27, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Yeah, deal, I'm in. Just don't look at me. I didn't do it. I wasn't even in that neighborhood.



I was a neutral


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...IMO David Glantz is the gold standard for history of WWII Russian front. "
> 
> Agree.



Yep. I just wish his writing was not quite so dry.


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

Maybe Hasbro could make a "Who Started WW1" version of Clue?


----------



## Readie (Oct 27, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I was a neutral



We weren't and I have inherited a legacy that, on occasions, can colour my views. But, I have learnt a lot from interaction on this site and am happy to learn and to understand others legacy and views.

Tricky waters but, quite navigable 

John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2013)

It wasnt just Europe that went to war in 1914.....

Australia’s first national military force, the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) was formed at the outbreak of World War One. (1914)

When war broke out in Europe in August 1914, Australia immediately supported Britain, following its example by declaring war on Germany. It was obligated to do so, at that stage we had no control over our foreign policy. Most Australians were enthusiastic about the idea of helping Britain, and defending her if necessary. My grandfather and a man named Doyle were working as stockmen in the northern territory at a huge station (with a land area bigger than the whole of England) at the time, and in 1914 drove several hundred horses for the newly forming Mounted Div, which became known as the Light Horse. Droving hundreds of wild horses to the port of Brisbane was a feat never before attempted, but they did manage it with a minimum of of losses to the herd. 

At this time the vast majority of Australians (approximately 95%) were from British background. Thousands of men rushed to join the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) which was set up to serve overseas. With the New Zealand forces they became known as the Anzacs. The Australian population was about 4.5 million, and in the end about 400,000 men volunteered for service. Most were sent overseas and fought at Gallipoli, in France and Belgium, or in Palestine in the desert. More than half of them had been killed or wounded by the end of the war in 1918. (59,258 were killed, 4,084 were taken prisoner and 166,815 were wounded). About 2,000 women also served overseas as nurses. The terrible suffering and loss of life, as well as economic difficulties at home, meant that as time went on, fewer and fewer people wanted to join the AIF, and there was more opposition throughout the community to Australia’s involvement in the war.

It was the beginning of a most gruelling 4 years for the country and my family. My grandfather was one of 750 men who joined the 7th Light Horse Regiment in 1914. he was the only surviving member that came through the war in one peace, though he suffered for the rest of his life from Post traumatic stress disorder for the rest of his life. He had 6 brothers, he was the youngest. I think 3 or 4 others also fought, and at least 2 of them did not come back.

I knew my grandfather and loved him greatly. he died a slow, agonising death, brought on in large measure by his war experiences. It colours my thinking and attitudes to this day. 

My spoke with my stepfather, a stalingrad veteran (german, iron cross recipient) about what had happened in this forum with the Lusitania thread. He is 91, and one of the clearest coolest heads I know. He says, simply, how many individuals do i think benefit from war. Very wise words in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Oct 27, 2013)

Parsifal, 

please can you give an overview how independent Australia was 1914?
To my sources Australia got it's independence at 26.09.1907

From this point on, had Australia an independent government with their own interests in economic and military and how independent was the economy without Great Britain?


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2013)

Michael Reynolds is a bit better in that regard when describing combat. So is Terence Zuber. 

However any accurate description of combat is going to appear dry to those without a military background. Military operation orders and after action reports are an acquired taste.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2013)

DonL said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> please can you give an overview how independent Australia was 1914?
> To my sources Australia got it's independence at 26.09.1907
> ...



Hi DonL

Briefly, Australia only became a nation in 1901. Before that there were separate states, that acquired independance, in the sense of establishing an independant legislature at various points in the 1800s. 

However Australia did not achieve independance in foreign policy until 1931. until then our foreign relations were control by the british foreign office, or the colonial office (I forget which)


----------



## Marcel (Oct 28, 2013)

Great post Parcifal!


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 28, 2013)

Very educational, gentlemen.
I believe this thread is one of the most educational ones in this forum.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2013)

"....how many _individuals_ do i think benefit from war. Very wise words in my opinion."

Very wise, indeed.

Great you still have him.

MM


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2013)

How Europe stumbled into to world war 1.

Treaties

Sabre rattling

Mobilisations

Railways, which got the mobilised troops to the borders and facing each other quickly.

Sort of after AJP Taylor.

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2013)

Worth reading:

Robert Fisk: The flood of 1914-18 memorabilia has begun ? and it will break your heart - Comment - Voices - The Independent


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

The major events leading to outbreak of war. This is not a comlete list, but even the basic events leading to war are complicated and long in the making 
http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/124977


19th Apr, 1839

Guarantee of Belgium Neutrality – This document guaranteed that France, Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain would recognize Belgium as an independent and neutral country

19th Jul, 1870

10 May 1971, The Franco-Prussian War breaks out, Prussia emerges victorious. This heightens tensions between France and Prussia.


18th Jan, 1871

The German Empire is created out of Prussia. Kaiser Wilhelm I takes the throne.


10th May, 1871

France was obligated to sign a degrading treaty with Germany to officially end the war.

7th Oct, 1879

1879: The Dual Alliance was an Austro-German treaty which stated that the countries would support each other if Russia were to wage war on them


18th Jun, 1881

Three Emperor's League– The original alliance between Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia was secretly renewed.


28th Jun, 1881

Austro-Serbian Alliance – Austria-Hungary made an alliance with Serbia because they wanted to soothe tensions of the Slavic peoples 


20th Mar, 1882

The Triple Alliance- this secret agreement was established between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy to state that the three countries would come to each other’s aid if attacked.


1st Jan, 1883

The Austro-Romanian Alliance –This alliance strengthened both countries, especially Austria-Hungary because they already had an alliance with Russia and Germany

Year specified; Day and month not specified


1st Jan, 1884

1885, The Berlin Conference - This conference was held to divide Africa up into sections that European countries colonized. Many countries involved in World War One attended.

Years specified; Day and month not specified


1st Nov, 1884

Tsar Nicholas was crowned king of Russia – This gave Russia the King that would start their involvement in World War One. He was Cousins with the Czar and King George V – heir to the British Throne.


15th Jun, 1888

Wilhelm II becomes Emperor of Germany – This gave Germany the Kaiser that would initiate their involvement in World War One.


1st Jan, 1889

1913, The Anglo-German Naval Race – The English and the Germans start to focus on strengthening their naval fleets.

Years specified; Day and month not specified


4th Jun, 1894

The Franco-Russian Alliance – This alliance assured both countries support from the other if attacked by the Triple Alliance

22nd Jan, 1901

Queen Victoria dies, King George V takes over. This king would see Britain through World War One.


8th Apr, 1904

The Entente Cordiale- An agreement made to form friendship and understanding between Britain and France.


30th Jul, 1904

2 Jan 1905, The Russo-Japanese War- Japan destroyed the entire Russian army which surprised the rest of the world and humiliated Russia.


31st Aug, 1907

The Anglo-Russian Agreement.- Great Britain and Russia agreed to leave Persia alone as a neutral country.


31st Aug, 1907

he Triple Entente – Russia joined Britain and France from the Entente Cordiale to form the Triple Entente in fear of Germany’s rising power. The Anglo-Russian entente lead to this.


6th Oct, 1908

Austria-Hungary annexes Bosnia which was formerly under control of the Ottoman Empire.


29th Sep, 1911

Oct 1912, Turkish-Italian War.- Also known as the The Tripolitan War. Conflict between the Ottoman Turks and the Italians


8th Oct, 1912

30 May 1913, The First Balkan War.- A war between Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro. Turkey lost and lost all of its European ‘possessions’.


1st Nov, 1912

Anglo-French Naval Agreement- An agreement that promised Britain’s protection of French coastlines from German attack. The French agreed to protect the Suez Canal in return.

Year and month specified; Day no specified 


4th Mar, 1913

Woodrow Wilson sworn in as US president. This gave the United Staes the President that would see them through the war.

29th Jun, 1913

31 July 1913, The Second Balkan War.- Bulgaria wanted more territory, so they fought with their allies to get it. Romania got Bulgarian capital Sofia. Bulgaria lost Adrianople to Turkey.


28th Jun, 1914

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian activist. Most people state that this is what started World War I.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

One of the bits of flotsam that fell out of the European machinations was the federation of Australia. Fear of Russian and later german invasions led many of the nations population to believe our only hope of effective national defence was to Federate the separate states in Australia into one nation.


----------



## silence (Oct 28, 2013)

oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 28, 2013)

parsifal said:


> One of the bits of flotsam that fell out of the European machinations was the federation of Australia. Fear of Russian and later german invasions led many of the nations population to believe our only hope of effective national defence was to Federate the separate states in Australia into one nation.




Seems to me that they're so remote form Germany and Russia that the fear of invasion seems a bit fantastical. I don't see either country able to land a strong enough force at one time to successfully take on the An(Zac)s on their home ground.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

silence said:


> Seems to me that they're so remote form Germany and Russia that the fear of invasion seems a bit fantastical. I don't see either country able to land a strong enough force at one time to successfully take on the An(Zac)s on their home ground.



Could not agree more. However it is what it is. The Germans did have colonial posessions that bordered Australian territory in the form of Papua, and the Russians at the time were developing their naval facilities at Port Arthur. 3 years after federeation, in 1904, the Russians did send a sizable fleet to attack the japanese, but were defeated. 

However mythical the threat of invason was, it was real enough in the minds of Australians, and there were the circumstances to fuel such xenophobia


----------



## DonL (Oct 28, 2013)

I have some problems with the causality,



> 19th Apr, 1839
> 
> Guarantee of Belgium Neutrality – This document guaranteed that France, Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain would recognize Belgium as an independent and neutral country



This was a Treaty 75 years back, where the political, military and territorial circumstances were totaly others then 1914.
Also I'm not very impressed from the claim, that the breaking of the neutrality of Belgium was this big issue. To me it was made from the Triple Entente propaganda to an issue and excuse to have something to present. Also from one of Niall Ferguson's books, that indicates Great Britain itself was ready to violate Belgian neutrality for military reasons
Only three examples were neutrality wasn't interesting anyone.
Battle of Copenhagen 1801 and 1807 also Operation Catapult, classical examples, where was argumented with military reasons to break neutrality, but here the breaker wasn't Germany.




> 18th Jan, 1871
> 
> The German Empire is created out of Prussia. Kaiser Wilhelm I takes the throne.



You see the creation of the German Empire causal to the outbrake of WWI? 
What has happened if Germany would have stand a multi prince state?
Don't you think that France and Russia perhaps had forced their imperialism (as all other major countries of this time in Europe) and revenche much earlier?
I admit that for the other Nations and countries it was easier to live in Europe with a weak german prince state building instead of a strong german Empire, because they could force their plans easier, but it is hard for me to believe, that the creation of the german Nation (which was in the end the german Empire) was causal for the outbreak of WWI.

Also I want to add, that France declared war at 1870 to the Norddeutschen Bund for a more then banal reason, because they thought "Germany" was weak and they can win the war easily. They didn't calculate with the spirit of the "german Nation" and that the 4 big south prince states support the Norddeutschen Bund.
I also admit that the treaty at 1871 was to harsh, but the last 100 years "germany" (all different countries) was the primary goal of France with several different wars to annex territory

With your other points I have also realy problems with the causality till 1890-1900.
I would agree that with Wilhelm II as Emperor and the the release of chancelor Otto von Bismarck, on a very wide subjectiv side you can argument, this had favor the outbreak of WWI, but nothing more.



> 1st Jan, 1889
> 
> 1913, The Anglo-German Naval Race – The English and the Germans start to focus on strengthening their naval fleets.
> 
> Years specified; Day and month not specified



This is one of the next heightened propaganda issue mostly from Great Britain.
The german Navy was till 1905 about 25% of the strenghts of the british Navy and till 1914 35%, where was this to any point a race?
Germany was from 1890 on an export economy, with a constant increase of the economy and export, so the german Empire had an interest to support it's world wide increasing trade lines. To me it is curious that the concurrent activity of the USN/USA wasn't at any time a problem for Great Britain.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

Australia's early involvement in the Great War included the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force landing at Rabaul on 11 September 1914 and taking possession of German New Guinea at Toma on 17 September 1914 and the neighbouring islands of the Bismarck Archipelago in October 1914. On 14 November 1914 the Royal Australian Navy made a significant contribution when HMAS Sydney destroyed the German raider SMS Emden.

The Asian and Pacific Theatre of World War I was a conquest of German colonial possession in the Pacific Ocean and China. The most significant military action was the careful and well-executed Siege of Tsingtao in what is now China, but smaller actions were also fought at Bita Paka and Toma in German New Guinea.
All other German and Austrian possessions in Asia and the Pacific fell without bloodshed. Naval warfare was common; all of the colonial powers had naval squadrons stationed in the Indian or Pacific Oceans. These fleets operated by supporting the invasions of German held territories and by destroying the East Asia Squadron.

One of the first land offensives in the Pacific theatre was the Occupation of German Samoa in August 1914 by New Zealand forces. The campaign to take Samoa ended without bloodshed after over 1,000 New Zealanders landed on the German colony, supported by an Australian and French naval squadron.

Australian forces attacked German New Guinea in September 1914: 500 Australians encountered 300 Germans and native policemen at the Battle of Bita Paka; the Allies won the day and the Germans retreated to Toma. A company of Australians and a British warship besieged the Germans and their colonial subjects, ending with a German surrender.

After the fall of Toma, only minor German forces were left in New Guinea and these generally capitulated once met by Australian forces. In December 1914, one German officer near Angorum attempted resist the occupation with thirty native police but his force deserted him after they fired on an Australian scouting party and he was subsequently captured.

By 1915, the only uncapitulated German force was a small expedition under the command of Hermann Detzner which managed to elude Australian patrols and hold out in the interior of the island until the end of the war, for which he became a figure of some renown.

German Micronesia, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshall Islands also fell to Japanese forces operating with the allies.

When war was declared on Germany in 1914, the German East Asia Squadron withdrew from its base at Tsingtao and attempted to make its way east across the Pacific and back to Germany. After concentrating the majority of its force at Pagan Island, the fleet raided several Allied targets as it made its way across the Pacific.
Detached cruisers raided the cable station at Fanning and then rejoined with the squadron. Later the German forces would attack Papeete where Admiral Maximilian von Spee with his two armoured cruisers sank a French gunboat and a freighter before bombarding Papeete's shore batteries.

The next engagement was fought off Chile at the Battle of Coronel on November 1, 1914, Admiral Spee won the battle by defeating a British squadron which was sent to destroy him. His two armored and three light cruisers sank two Royal Navy armored cruisers and forced a British light cruiser and auxiliary cruiser to flee. Over 1,500 British sailors (all hands aboard both cruisers) were killed while only three Germans were wounded. The victory did not last long as the German fleet was soon defeated in Atlantic waters at the Battle of the Falklands in December 1914. Spee himself went down with his own flagship SMS Scharnhorst.

The only German vessels to escape the Falklands engagement was the light cruiser Dresden and the auxiliary Seydlitz. Seydlitz fled into the Atlantic before being interned by neutral Argentina, while Dresden turned about and steamed back into the Pacific. The Dresden then attempted to act as a commerce raider, without much success, until March 1915 when its engines began to break down.
Without means of getting repairs, the German light cruiser sailed into neutral Chilean waters at the island of Mas a Tierra where it was cornered by British naval forces. After a short battle in which four of her crew were killed, the Dresden was forced to scuttle and her crew was interned by Chilean authorities.

The cruise of the Emden.

SMS Emden was left behind by Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee when he began his retreat across the Pacific. The ship won the Battle of Penang, in which the Germans sank a Russian cruiser and a French destroyer. Emden also harried merchant vessels of the Allies and destroyed over thirty of them. This was an issue of great concern to the Pacific dominions, as the seaborne trade routes were vital to their terms of trade

Emden went on and bombarded Madras, India, causing damage to British oil tanks and sinking an Allied merchant ship. The attack caused widespread panic in the city and thousands of people fled from the coast, fearing that the Germans may have begun an invasion of India as a whole.

After a very successful career as a merchant raider, Emden was engaged by HMAS Sydney at the Battle of Cocos, where the German vessel was destroyed. A group of sailors under the command of Hellmuth von Mücke managed to escape towards the Arabian peninsula which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, an ally of the German Empire during World War I. I do not know if they made it….


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

This is an account largely drawn from Larry Zuckermann (The Rape Of Belgium; The Untold Story). The Treaty of London of 1839, also called the First Treaty of London, the Convention of 1839, and the London Treaty of Separation, was a treaty signed on 19 April 1839 between the European great powers, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium. It was the direct follow-up of the 1831 'Treaty of the XXIV Articles' which the Netherlands had refused to sign, and the result of negotiations at the London Conference of 1838-1839.

Under the treaty, the European powers recognized and guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium and confirmed the independence of the German-speaking part of Luxembourg. Its main historical significance was Article VII, which required Belgium to remain perpetually neutral, and by implication committed the signatory powers to guard that neutrality in the event of invasion. It was an undertaking taken very seriously by the British in particular

Belgium's de facto independence had been established through nine years of intermittent fighting, the Belgian Revolution. The co-signatories of the Treaty of London—Great Britain, Austria, France, the German Confederation (led by Prussia), Russia, and the Netherlands—now officially recognised the independent Kingdom of Belgium, and at Britain's insistence agreed to its neutrality.

According to Zuckermann the treaty was an important document, especially in its role in bringing about World War I. It was a treaty that retained great significance in Whitehall, though the Germans tended to try and minimise its importance. When the German Empire invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the treaty, the British declared war on 4 August. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over the latter's violation of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere "scrap of paper." Therein lies in large measure why Germans would consider it an unimportant event, whilst to people of British descent, it remains a significant feature and reason for the war. It leaves unanswered why the Germans would find it necessary to invade Belgium in the first place. What thret to German security did the Belgians pose? As i understand it, one of germany's security concerns was with France. how does an independant nation, like Belgium, with signed gurantees of neutrality from all the major powers, including the predecessor of the German state, have any relevance to the security issues relating to France? Sure, the belgians were a victim of geography, but that in my opinion is not sufficient reason or justification to violate its neutrality. 

In terms of latter day parallels, the best I can think of are the NATO treaties and the ANZUS alliance. The ANZUS alliance is now 61 years old, and if its immediate predecessor is included, 71 years old. This makes it almost as old as the treaty of London at the time of WWI. In time of invasion, Australians would very seriously expect the US to come to its aid, and vice versa. Age of a treaty can sometimes have nothing to do with its relevance


----------



## DonL (Oct 28, 2013)

> According to Zuckermann the treaty was an important document, especially in its role in bringing about World War I. It was a treaty that retained great significance in Whitehall, though the Germans tended to try and minimise its importance. When the German Empire invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the treaty, the British declared war on 4 August. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over the latter's violation of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere "scrap of paper." Therein lies in large measure why Germans would consider it an unimportant event, whilst to people of British descent, it remains a significant feature and reason for the war. *It leaves unanswered why the Germans would find it necessary to invade Belgium in the first place. What thret to German security did the Belgians pose? *As i understand it, one of germany's security concerns was with France. how does an independant nation, like Belgium, with signed gurantees of neutrality from all the major powers, including the predecessor of the German state, have any relevance to the security issues relating to France? Sure, the belgians were a victim of geography, but that in my opinion is not sufficient reason or justification to violate its neutrality.



It would be very important to mention, that only *in the event of a two-front war*, it was necessary to invade Begium to hit France first, from imperative military reasons.
This is the main reason, that it is to me more then curious, that the Belgium issue hangs this high. At 1839 the military and much more important the territory backgrounds were totaly different. With the rising of a two front war, *after the triple entente Treaty of 1904*, the german General Staff began to plan a counterplan against a possible two-front war, *the Schlieffen-Plan 1905*. 
As you can see the Schlieffen-Plan has an absolut dircet bond/connect to the triple entente treaty of 1904. 
Before this treaty Belgium wasn't in any plan of the General Stuff, after this treaty, the General Staff involved Belguim in it's plans (and so a break of neutralty) to counter a two-front war, from imperative military reasons.
Also you can see this at the war at 1870, where the neutrality of Belgium was respected and accepted.
If 1914 the germans had only a war against France, without the other major powers especially Russia, the neutrality of Begium would be respected. 

I repeat my question, why were the military reasons of breaking the Neutrality of Denmark and Vichy France higher, then the miltary reasons of breaking the neutrality of Belgium, even if this treaty was 75 years old and the borderlines were totaly different at the timeline of 1839 then 1914 and the military circumstances also totaly different.

To me it is and was an excuse, every other major power had done the same as Germany, if they were in the same position of a two front war, between France and Russia and has someting to do, to counter such an event.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 28, 2013)

Bear in mind that the French had asked the Belgians for access through thier countryside and were denied, just as the Germans were. A confrontation between Germany and France was inevitable but in order to expedite an attack, they had to bypass the Franco-German frontier. This is where Belgium became involved, because the Belgian countryside offered quick access for transporting soldiers and equipment.

The Germans gambled on knocking out the French as fast as possible and then turning to counter a Russian attack that they knew was coming. So the Germans struck first.

The flaw to the German's planning, was that the Russians attacked much faster than they had calculated.


----------



## DonL (Oct 28, 2013)

But only after the triple entente treaty of 1904 and the very dangerous rising of a two front war.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2013)

The Churchill Era: An Educational Resource

How serious was the German naval threat to Great Britain before 1914?


For a hundred years after Nelson's victory at Trafalgar in 1805 Britain's navy was the largest and most powerful in the world. It had no serious rival in Europe or America. Britain's naval power allowed her to build up a vast overseas empire, and to conduct trade safely all over the globe. But as the twentieth century dawned, for the first time Britain's leading position was challenged, by the strong new empire of Germany.

Britain had adopted a "Two-Power" standard in 1889 - i.e. her fleet was to be larger than the fleets of the next two powers combined. At the time these were assumed to be France and Russia, with the United States as a future possibility. Germany, with its relatively short coastline and with no overseas empire to defend, was not considered a serious potential naval power. But Kaiser Wilhelm II, who came to the throne in 1888, was both fascinated by and resentful of British naval dominance. He was determined to build up a German fleet to rival Britain's. His vision was enthusiastically shared by the German Secretary for the Navy, Admiral Tirpitz. Tirpitz got the necessary funding from the German parliament, the Reichstag, for an ambitious programme of naval expansion, contained in a series of Navy Laws. 

The British were at first caught off-guard by the German naval programme, and reacted with a mixture of alarm and protest. Popular novels, like Erskine Childers's The Riddle of the Sands imagined a German invasion of Britain; in more practical terms, the Asquith Government faced up to the question of modernising and expanding the British Navy. The Navy was already being thoroughly modernised by the energetic First Sea Lord (most senior Admiral of the Royal Navy), Sir John ("Jacky") Fisher. Fisher was responsible for the launch in 1906 of the revolutionary battleship HMS Dreadnought, whose ultra-modern armament made her overnight the most powerful ship in the world and effectively rendered every other battleship obsolete. But it was clear that other countries, notably Germany, would soon start launching their own dreadnoughts. It was down to the government, therefore, to ensure that Britain still maintained her lead in the new dreadnought age.

Financing naval expansion on this scale would make huge inroads into the budget, and the Cabinet was taken by surprise by the naval spending estimates put forward in 1908 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Reginald McKenna. Although the Cabinet was divided on the issue, there was a vigorous public campaign for naval expansion, spurred on by the launch that year of the first German dreadnought, Nassau. Churchill, who became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, was an enthusiastic advocate of the Anglo-German naval race that ensued.

Britain viewed the german naval expansion programs under Tirpitz with a great deal of alarm. Britain was aware that her naval dominance allowed her political influence far beyond her actual military power and industrial potential. The British also were aware of the vastly superior german industrial resources, which meant that she alone of all the nations in Europe could eclipse British naval power within a generation.

Most other European nations accepted British naval supremacy, Partly of necessity, but also because the british campioned 9at least in theory) the freedom of the seas, and opposed attacks by guerre de course. The Imperial German navy was a bit of an unknown in that regard. nobody was sure how it would be used if it gained dominance. it was certainly viewed as a threat to british security


----------



## DonL (Oct 28, 2013)

From all primary sources we have today (from all archives), Germany didn't ever planed or had the wish to invade Great Britain or go to war with Great Britain.

What you can say is, that Germany wanted also to be a big player at the world wide imperialism and after the release of Bismarck, their political behavior was partly naive, bearish and arrogant. But show me realy one serious event, where Germany operated directly and seriously against Great Britain between 1890-1914.
There main goal was France and partly Russia through their ally with Austria Hungarian. Even at the big crisis of the Balkan wars 1912, Germany and Great Britain worked hand in hand to avoid any war between Austria Hungarian and Russia.

Also I can't see this big involvement of Germany at Asia between 1890-1914.
Yes they had interests, but they were not invoved in any war or forced territory annexion, other then Russia or Japan.

The german Navy proclaimed, supported and with the major propaganda, was a major failure of WilhelmII, but as I said, if you ckeck the real facts and unit strenghts, the german navy was far away to be a competitor to the Royal Navy, at the best times 35% 1914.

Also after the France-Prussian war of 1870 with the blockade of all german harbours at the North Sea and the permanent increasing economy and export from 1890, I can understand that Germany wanted to have safety at sea with their own Navy and the planed strenghts of the german navy was very official to all other countries through the naval law.
There was to no point any secret, forced or unplaned building.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 29, 2013)

I agree with DonL here. I think the main thread from Germany to the UK was economical. In reality, the German naval power was not a real threath to the British.

But could the British have known at the time that the german navy would not match their strength? I guess for them it seemed like it would. And to be fair, although an inferior power, I think the German navy gave a good account of themselves at Jutland. So maybe the fear was not so unrealistic after all?


----------



## DonL (Oct 29, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I agree with DonL here. I think the main thread from Germany to the UK was economical. In reality, the German naval power was not a real threath to the British.
> 
> *But could the British have known at the time that the german navy would not match their strength? *I guess for them it seemed like it would. And to be fair, although an inferior power, I think the German navy gave a good account of themselves at Jutland. So maybe the fear was not so unrealistic after all?




But Marcel, how should this be possible? Every unit and also every replacement of a unit, was ruled by the german naval law and the budget through the Reichstag. This was all very official and every ambassador could read the naval law and see it.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 29, 2013)

DonL said:


> But Marcel, how should this be possible? Every unit and also every replacement of a unit, was ruled by the german naval law and the budget through the Reichstag. This was all very official and every ambassador could read the naval law and see it.



Laws can be very quickly changed...... expecially in a Country whose Kanzler Otto von Bismarck affirmed "Treaties are simply chiffon de papier"......


----------



## parsifal (Oct 29, 2013)

I think it a fair assessment that the German Navy, on its own would have been hard pressed to defeat the RN. 

However in 1889, the British, after 75 years of minimal contact in European affairs, preferring to adopt their traditional role of naval dominance around the seas of Europe, which gave a loose gentle control of Europe anyway, adopted the 2:1 standard, basically that the Royal Navy would be at least twice as powerful as the next two naval powers in Europe. The british felt they could continue their neglect of European affairs if that situation was continued.

The Germans did not accept that situation, and under Tirpitz massive plans were announced for really big expansions of the German Navy. I think it was 1898 that German announcements caused a near panic in the RN. They announced something like 19 Battleships and well over 30 cruisers to be laid down, which completely outclassed the rather leisurely RN building programs. The British responded, culminating in a number of significant changes. In the early part of the 20th century they launched the HMS Drreadnought, which almost completely rendered obsolete all previous Battleship designs. this had a knock on effect of temporarily slowing the rival building programs, whilst the European Navies came up with their own dreadnought designs. It was around this time that three things happened which i think are worth noting. The first was the offer by Churchill for a building holiday for further battleship production. It was rejected by the Germans (not without justification). This really got the attention of the British, and made them realize they really had to pull out the stops to maintain some level of naval supremacy. But given the superior German economic base, it became clear to the British that could no longer maintain the 2:1 basis, and this in turn caused them to get into the European politics even more than they already were (ie find more allies as an alternative to their own power). I believe the Triple Entente was a in part a direct outgrowth of the naval building race. 

I think around 1910, there was a further agreement between the germans and the British that set the Capital Ship ratio at 1.6:1. Im pretty sure that agreement was broken by the Germans, but Ill have to check. Im not saying that as an inflammatory statement, from the German perspective it made sense from a naval strategy point of view to close the gap. No reason why the germans should not, except it was terrible diplomacy, and that, in the end, was what drove the major powers to war more than anything.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 29, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I think around 1910, there was a further agreement between the germans and the British that set the Capital Ship ratio at 1.6:1. Im pretty sure that agreement was broken by the Germans, but Ill have to check. Im not saying that as an inflammatory statement, from the German perspective it made sense from a naval strategy point of view to close the gap. No reason why the germans should not, except it was terrible diplomacy, and that, in the end, was what drove the major powers to war more than anything.


I fully agree with your statement. German policy after Bismarck before WWI has been been a terrible mess in diplomacy and incredible naive. It surely helped a lot in shaping the world running to total destruction.

Still I also think the economic rise of Germany was of major influence on British politics. They were used to being the most powerful economical power. However, after 1870, the German economy started to grow tremedously (don't have the figures here right now, but I have them at home) while their econony didn't. German threat came from this and the German wish to share in the benefits of colonies made the British fearful and drove them into the arms of the French.


----------



## DonL (Oct 29, 2013)

German Fleet from 1890-1905/06 (pre Dreadnaught Battleships)

Battleships

4 x Brandenburg Klasse 1890; launched 1894 ; 10600 ts; 6 x 11 inch guns
5 x Kaiser-Friedrich-III.-Klasse 1895; launched 1898; 11100ts; 4 x 9,5 inch guns
5 x Wittelsbach-Klasse 1898; launched 1900; 11775 ts; 4 x 9,5 inch guns
5 x Braunschweig-Klasse 1901; launched 1902; 13208 ts; 4 x 11 inch guns
5 x Deutschland Klasse 1903, launched 1905/1906; 13200ts 4 x 11 inch guns 

Armored Cruiser:

1 x SMS Kaiserin Augusta, 1890, launched 1892; 6056ts; 12 x 6 inch guns
5 x Victoria Louise Klasse; 1895, launched till 1900; 5660 ts; 2 x 8,2 inch and 8 x 6 inch guns
1 x SMS Fürst Bismarck; 1896, launched 1897; 10690ts; 2 x 9.5 inch and 12 x 6 inch guns
1 x SMS Prinz Heinrich ; 1898; launched 1900; 8900 ts; 2 x 9.5 inch and 10 x 6 inch guns
2 x Prinz Adalbert Class; 1900/01/ launched 1901/1902 9087ts; 4 x 8.2 and 10 x 6 inch guns
2 x SMS Roon Class; 1902; launched 1903; 9533ts; 4 x 8.2 and 10 x 6 inch guns
2 x SMS Scharnhorst 1904; launched 1906; 11616ts; 8 x 8.2 and 6 x 6 inch guns
1 x SMS Blücher 1907; launched 1908; 15850ts; 12 x 8.2 and 8 x 6 inch guns

In summary 24 Battleships and 15 armoured cruiser 
Note: The german Navy had in addition 21 small cruisers between 2600ts and 3400ts all armed with 4.1 inch guns.

Royal Navy from 1890-1905/06 (pre Dreadnaught Battleships)

Battleships

8 x Royal-Sovereign-Klasse 1889; launched 1891; 14150ts; 4 x 13.5 inch guns
3 x Centurion-Klasse 1890/1992; launched (1892/94); 10500ts; 4 x 10 inch guns 
9 x Majestic-Klasse 1894; launched 1895/1896; 14900ts; 4 x 12 inch guns
6 x Canopus-Klasse 1897; launched 1898; 13150ts; 4 x 12 inch guns
8 x Formidable-Klasse 1897; launched 1898; 15800ts; 4 x 12 inch guns
6 x Duncan-Klasse 1899; launched 1901, 13750ts; 4 x 12 inch guns
2 x Swiftsure-Klasse 1902; launched 1903 11800ts; 4 x 10 inch guns 
8 x King-Edward-VII-Klasse 1902, launched 1904; 16350 ts; 4 x 12 inch and 4 x 9.2 inch guns
2 x Lord-Nelson-Klasse 1905; launched 1906; 16090ts; 4 x 12 inch and 10 x 9.2 inch guns

Armoured Cruiser: first rated cruisers 

2 x Blake-Klasse; 1890/1892; 9150ts; 2 x 9.2 inch and 10 x 6 inch guns 
9 x Edgar-Klasse 1890/1891; 7700 ts; 2 x 9.2 inch and 10 x 6 inch guns 
2 x Powerful-Klasse 1894/1895 14200ts; 2 x 9.2 inch and 12 x 6 inch guns 
8 x Diadem-Klasse 1895/1897 11000ts; 16 x 6 inch guns
6 x Cressy-Klasse 1898/1900 12.000 ts; 2 x 9.2 inch and 12 x 6 inch guns 
4 x Drake-Klasse 1899/1901 14.100 ts, 2 x 9.2 inch and 16 x 6 inch guns
10 x Monmouth-Klasse 1900/1902; 9800ts; 14 x 6 inch guns 
6 x Devonshire-Klasse 1902/1904; 10850ts; 4 x 7.5 inch 6 x 6 inch guns
2 x Duke of Edinburgh-Klasse 1903/1904ts; 13550ts; 6 x 9.2 inch and 10 x 6 inch guns 
4 x Warrior-Klasse 1903/1905; 13550ts; 6 x 9.2 inch and 4 x 7.5 inch guns
3 x Minotaur-Klasse 1905/1906 14600ts; 6 x 9.2 inch and 10 x 7.5 inch guns

52 Battleships and 56 first rated armoured cruisers

Note: Also the Royal Navy had in addition 47 second rated cruisers between 3400ts and 5800ts all armed with 6 inch and 4.7 inch guns and 24 third rated cruisers between 2200ts and 3000ts all armed with 4.1 inch guns. 

Some explanations:

The four ships of the Brandenburg Klasse were at the timeline of their commissioning already out-dated through their old guns, they had no fast firing guns. *The next two battleship classes of the german Navy were small second rated battleships with 4 x 9.5 inch fast firing guns*, the last two classes were mostly modern first rated battleship classes with 4 x 11 inch guns. All german battleships till 1906 were much smaller and less heavy armed then all Royal Navy battleships (except Centurion and Swiftsure-Klasse)

So till 1906 the german Navy had 10 first rated and 10 second rated Battleships, plus four out-dated, 15 first rated armoured cruiser and 21 second to third rated small cruisers.

The Royal Navy had 47 first rated battleships and 5 second rated Battleships, 56 first rated cruisers., 47 second rated cruisers and 24 third rated cruisers 

My question is, where on earth came this panik at 1890, 1900 and 1905 from Great Britain?
To me there is no reason for this panik, because the german Navy were also bound at the East Sea against the Russians and also to the French Navy. 52 Battleships against much smaller and partly out-dated 24 Battleships and 127 cruisers against 36 cruisers.


German Fleet from 1906-1914 Battleships, which were laid down.

Battleships:

4 x Nassau-Klasse; 1907/1908; 19000ts; 12 × 11 inch SK L/45
4 x Helgoland-Klasse 1908/1909; 22800ts; 12 × 12 inch SK L/50 
5 x Kaiser-Klasse 1909/1911; 24800ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/50 
4 x König-Klasse 1911/1913 25800ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/50 
4 x Bayern-Klasse 1913/1915; 28.530 ts; 8 × 15 inch SK L/45 only two were commisioned and the last was laid down at 12.08.1914 (after the War began)


Battlecruisers:

1 x SMS Von der Tann 1907/1909; 19500ts; 8 × 11 inch SK L/45
2 x Moltke-Klasse 1909/1910; 23000ts; 10 × 11 inch SK L/50
1 x SMS Seydlitz 1911/1912; 25000ts; 10 × 11 inch SK L/50
3 x Derfflinger-Klasse 1912/ 1915; 26600ts; 8 × 12 inch SK L/50 

In summary laid down till 1914 21 Battleships and 7 Battlecruisers.

Royal Navy Battleships and Battlecruisers laid down till 1914

Battleships:

1 x HMS Dreadnought 1905/1906; 18.110 ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/45 
3 x Bellerophon-Klasse 1906/1907; 18.800 ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/45 
3 x St. Vincent-Klasse 1907/1909; 19.560 ts ; 10 × 12 inch SK L/45 
4 x Orion-Klasse; 1909/1910; 22000ts; 10 × 13.5 inch SK L/45 
1 x Neptune-Klasse 1909;20000ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/50 
2 x Colossus-Klasse 1909; 20000ts; 10 × 12 inch SK L/50 
4 x King George V-Klasse; 1911/1912; 23400ts; 10 × 13.5 inch SK L/45
4 x Iron Duke-Klasse 1912; 25820 ts; 10 × 13.5 inch SK L/45
5 x Queen Elizabeth-Klasse; 1913/1915; 29.150ts; 8 × 15 inch SK L/42 
5 x Revenge-Klasse 1913/1916; 28.000 ts; 8 × 15 inch SK L/42 
plus
1 x HMS Agincourt 
1 x HMS Erin
1 x HMS Canada

Battlecruisers:

3 x Invincible-Klasse; 1906/1907; 17.420ts; 8 × 12 inch SK L/45 
3 x Indefatigable-Klasse; 1908/1909; 19.100 ts; 8 × 12 inch SK L/45 
3 x Lion-Klasse; 1909/1912; 26.270ts; 8 × 13.5 inch SK L/45
1 x HMS Tiger 1912/1913; 28.500 ts; 8 × 13.5 inch SK L/45

In summary:

35 Battleships and 10 Battlecruisers.

I admit that at 1907 with the observation of the technical advantages of the Dreadnaught and Invincible class ships through the germans and also the next treaty from 1907 from the triple entente a real naval race begun, with disastrous consequences.



> The first was the offer by Churchill for a building holiday for further battleship production. It was rejected by the Germans (not without justification).



Please can you give a timeline? Because it is easy to offer a building holiday for example 1907, when you have already 7 Dreadnaught BB's and 3 Invincible-class BC's in building and your "enemy" had nothing at that time in building of a modern class.



> I think around 1910, there was a further agreement between the germans and the British that set the Capital Ship ratio at 1.6:1. Im pretty sure that agreement was broken by the Germans, but Ill have to check.



I realy doubt this, with the numbers I have presented.


----------



## silence (Oct 29, 2013)

DonL said:


> German Fleet from 1890-1905/06 (pre Dreadnaught Battleships)
> 
> Battleships
> 
> ...



You've been busy!

I think its also worth noting that the RN classes tended to have bigger guns than their German class counterparts, e.g. Iron Dukes vs. Koenigs, KGVs vs Kaisers, and so on, not to mention the ten 15" BBs vs the German's two (planned four). IIRC they also tended to be a knot or two faster - except for the QEs, which were almost BCs.

Now, this isn't to say that the British _weren't_ concerned, only that they most likely were a lot more concerned than they should have been.

One final thing that I think is worth mentioning is that the RN had at that time an unparalleled naval tradition, which they earned the hard way over several centuries of fighting all over the world.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 29, 2013)

There is no argument that the RN was larger than the German Navy. My calculation show that British Battleships 1890ish to 1913 were aas follows


Pre-Dreadnoughts

Victoria (1885) 2 (all scrapped 1905)
Trafalgar (1887) 2 (all scrapped 1905)
Centurion ((1890) 3 (all scrapped 1909-11)
Royal Sovereign (1888)1 +7 (scrappedby 1906)
Majestic (1893) 9 (1 lost 1897)
Canopus (1891) 6 (1 lost)
Formidable (1903) 8 
Duncan (1899) 6
King Edward VII (1901) 8
Swiftsure (1902) 2
Lord nelson (1904) 2

In 1906 the RN had 40 Battleships, roughly speaking 

Dreadnoughts added 1905-14

Dreadnought(1905) 1
Bellephron (1906) 3
St Vincent (1907) 3
Neptune (1909) 1
Colossus (1909) 2
Orion (1910) 4
KGV (1911) 4
Iron Duke (1912) 3 (+1 commissioneed after August)
Agincourt (1911) 1
Erin (1911) 1

There were Battlecruisers and 1 or 2 foreign orders taken over as well. But speaking generally, the RN added 23 Battleships 1905-14. With a little more research we can add those as well if thought necessary

The problem with a straight comparison, is that it fails to take into account the basic missions of the two navies, and also the strategic aims of the RN at that time. The RN was what we would call a sea control force. The RN was tasked with a very wide ranging mission, designed to control and protect the seaborne communications routes. That meant having to be in a lot of places at the same time. The British also wanted a two navy standard, so as to prevent two European countries from combining to defeat them jointly. this was a philosophy clearly based on the Napoleonic experiences, when the fleets of Spain and France had combined to attempt getting control of the European seas. 

The German Navy was what we would call a sea denial force. it had a relatively short and easily defended coast , and was not expected to patrol or control large amounts of ocean. It could operate as a concentrated force, able to sortie and cause upset at times of its own choosing. This was similar to the advantages held by the French Navy 120 years previously, and it had been found in that war that in order to control the ocean routes, the RN had needed a force many times the size of napoleons Navy to achieve that mission. there is nothing I can see, that would alter that in 1914 (except the speed of the ships and the non-dependance on the wind). The RN needed to be much larger than the KM, but wasnt big enough, or so it thought. It simply does not alter the fact that the RN was extremely sensitive to the challenge thrown down by the Germans, however hopeless, and that materially affected the diplomatic relationship between the two countries. The sad thing in my opinion is that the German naval expansion really gave them nothing, except an angry opponent that probably toipped the balance in the great War. 

Including ships begun before the war, but not completed until after the war is also misleading. The Germans had a number of designs in the pipeline, but these were suspended after the outbreak of war, and not completed. It is not valid to compare one sides building and not the others, and not at all valid to compare anything after the outbreak of hostilities.


----------



## DonL (Oct 29, 2013)

I don't think we should argue about every little number.

In general I agree your post with the indication, that also the german Navy had an Oversea squadron since Tsingtau but mostly we agree.

Also I agree with your analyse about the issue, that Germany had no advantage, first of it's fleet and second of the naval race in general.
What is also idiotic from ex post observation from a german view, that nobody had the brains of diplomatic and technical understanding to took the chance with the big break through the Dreadnaught and Invincible-class to come to an agreement with Great Britain.

The germans had problems with turbine engines, the first turbine engined Battlecruiser was SMS von der Tann and the first Battleships the Kaiser Class. The Nassau and Helgoland Class werel triple-expansion steam engines driven.
So why didn't the Germans speak with Great Britain at this timeline 1906-1907/08 to come to an agreement, something like 10 Battleships and 5 Battlecruisers in the next 10-15 years or something like that. From a technical viewpoint both Nassau and Helgoland Class were outdated with their introduction from a strictly technical and very modern viewpoint. 
To my opinion Tirpitz was at 1905 aware they he can't win the naval race and the charges were exploding and there were a lot of trouble at the Reichstag, because the Reichstag had the budget authorization. So there was more then an open door more an open barn door to come to grip and do it the diplomatic way and go to negotiations.

10-15 capital ships are more then enough to deal with Russia and France and also protect the own trade routes.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 29, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I agree with DonL here. I think the main thread from Germany to the UK was economical. In reality, the German naval power was not a real threath to the British.


They were a fatal mix. The British would have probably accepted the rise in Germany's economic power, if they hadn't mixed it with a naval build up at the same time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2013)

redcoat said:


> They were a fatal mix. The British would have probably accepted the rise in Germany's economic power, if they hadn't mixed it with a naval build up at the same time.



I highly doubt that. Any "power" whether it be economic or military was a threat to "Empire" and they would not allow that.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 29, 2013)

DonL said:


> I
> I repeat my question, why were the military reasons of breaking the Neutrality of Denmark and Vichy France higher, then the miltary reasons of breaking the neutrality of Belgium, even if this treaty was 75 years old and the borderlines were totaly different at the timeline of 1839 then 1914 and the military circumstances also totaly different.


Not military, but political. The British had not signed any treaties guaranteeing either Denmark's or Vichy France's neutrality.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 29, 2013)

Robert K. Massie wrote an excellent book on the naval build-up that led to WW1, "Dreadnaught".
Highly recommended.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 30, 2013)

The British collision with Germany is one thing, but the developing conflict between Russia, France and Serbia on the one hand, and Austria and Germany on the other is an altogether different situation, and for me, one that I dont understand as well. 

Serbia is often portrayed as the victim, but i have serious doubts. The group that assassinated the Archduke were basically terrorists. having said that, the Austrians were apparently engaging in a most unsavoury pogrom. Exactly who was to blame is probably an open question. 

The descent into war really was the result of ultra nationalism, and a shaky network of alliances. Once one nation within that alliance was in conflict with another it was very difficult for the entire continent not to also get involved. One question to try and resolve is whether one or more groups actively sought war, and if so whether their pursuit of conflict was undertaken legally. Sometimes wars are unavoidable. There is not much to be gained by application of any sort of moral code that is not based on some form of legal system. Arguments about who was right, or who was wrong are endless and pointless if they are just based on moral judgements. My belief systems and values are going to be different to the next mans. The best one can do in that situation is to judge the actions of each nation against the body of international law, such as it existed, that applied at the time hostilities broke out. Did each particular country act lawfully or not? 

There is a separate debate, that runs to the deeper, long term causes for each nations involvement. We have discussed, somewhat, the reasons for Britains involvement in the war. Why did they gravitate to war in the way that they did. i see that as a separate, no less valid argument, to the more narrow question of whether each nation acted lawfully in its road to war. In the case of Britain, the stated reason for the british DOW was the violation of Belgian Neutrality. We can argue whether that was the real reason for British involvement or not....it was the stated reason, it was known at the time. British gurantees were lawful, kown, and long standing. Not honouring those gurantees would have been an abrogation of Britains responsibilities, and could be argued as a form of illegal behaviour.... illegal by abrogation of responsibility. 

These gurantees given by Britain to Belgium were ignored by Germany. The consequence of that was war. I dont think that it can be argued that Britain acted unlawfully in any of that. I am not so sure about Germany's actions. Ive already asked the question, what threat did Belgium pose to Germany, to warrant its invasion. The answer I received is unsatisfactory.....it was necessary to attack Belgium so as to improve the chances of success against France. in my book that makes Germany the aggressor in that part of the conflict, and puts her in the wrong. Of the two nations in question, she was the nation that acted unlawfully by violating the neutrality of a nation that posed no threat to her. There may have been reasons for doing that, perhaps even good ones, but in terms of the narrow test of legaility, Germany's actions were not, in my view, a lawful application of warfare (in the sense of attacking a third party that was innocent).


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 30, 2013)

European history looks as complicated as ours in the Far East.
Frankly I have felt great sympathy for the loser as a same loser in the second world war
but this has been a good chance for me to understand how the ww1 happened.
Thank you very much, gents.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 30, 2013)

redcoat said:


> They were a fatal mix. The British would have probably accepted the rise in Germany's economic power, if they hadn't mixed it with a naval build up at the same time.


A German navy meant the Channel could be breached and Britain could be invaded. In fact, if Germany had a navy in WWII, it would have been invaded, right after France, I think.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

Parsifal, you type much faster than I can and write well 

A few remarks, though. The invasion of Belgium was only in name the reason for the British to go to war. Secret negotiations with France in the years before had already tied them to the fate of France. Mr. Grey claimed they had to help the Belgians when attacked because of the London treaty in 1839. That was false, not such obligation was in that treaty. 

You're right that german's pre-emptive strike made them the agressor. I think if they would have waited any longer it would have been France, but hat's not what happened. 

According to some books I have, The treaty between France and Russia made it quite clear that both countries were aiming for war with Germany around 1917. WW1 came a little early for them, but was exactly what they wanted. 

I have always believed that all countries were equally guilty in the making of ww1. This was quite different from ww2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

> Parsifal, you type much faster than I can and write well :thumbright


:

Thanks. you are doing fine i think



> A few remarks, though. The invasion of Belgium was only in name the reason for the British to go to war. Secret negotiations with France in the years before had already tied them to the fate of France. Mr. Grey claimed they had to help the Belgians when attacked because of the London treaty in 1839. That was false, not such obligation was in that treaty.



There were treaty obligations with France, Russia and Britain, well known as the Triple Entente. in the same way as germany was obkigated to come the aid of Austria , the british were allied to the french, and the Russians. Its that shaky alliance system again.

However, with regard to Belgium, the British gave separate undertakings to the Belgians several times in the 19th century to uphold their neutrality, with armed force if necessary. i disagree that it was false to claim they had no responsibility. it was not written directly into the treaty, but Britain had stated they would defend Belgian neutrality on many occasions, well before the final race to war. 



> You're right that german's pre-emptive strike made them the agressor. I think if they would have waited any longer it would have been France, but hat's not what happened.



It would have been intersting if the french did violate Belgian Neutrality. if Britains reason for declaring war on Germany was genuine, would thay have declared war on France for the same transgression? Somehow, I think not, but I also am doubtful they would have joined the french in theiur invasion either. we can only speculate really, because it never happened. 



> According to some books I have, The treaty between France and Russia made it quite clear that both countries were aiming for war with Germany around 1917. WW1 came a little early for them, but was exactly what they wanted.



I dont uppose you can identify the books you saw those opinions. I would like to undertake a bit more research in that regard



> I have always believed that all countries were equally guilty in the making of ww1. This was quite different from ww2.



All wars, including WWII have at least two sides, and for all wars there are reasons why each side fights. There were good reasons why the Nazis went to war in 1939, and over the years there have been many attempts to justify their aggression on that basis. This doesnt exonerate the Nazis, or make it legal. We have to be very careful to separate the rule of law (such as it is) from the wider, deeper reasons for war. 

In the case of WWI, the lines are far more blurred, and i have modified my belief to the extent of questioning the innocence of the French and the Russians, and the Serbs for that matter. The deep seated reasons were also more rational and justifiable from both sides perspectives. There were good and noble reasons why Germany went to war in 1914, just as there were good and noble reasons why the British did the same. Id hazard a guess and think that the russians and th4e french also can meet those criteria. You cant judge guilt or inocence on the basis of justification (a woman who kills her wife beating husband is likley to have justification for her crime, but is still guilty of manslaughter, and possibly murder) . You also cant make any sort of moral judgement in the case of WWI. Both sides had a good "moral" basis for going to war. Even the French anhd the Russians. But in the end, this came to nothing, and the war degenerated into the most ammoral of slaughters in history.

The best i think that can be done, is to assess whether each nation, in its machiavellian dealings with other nations, acted lawfully or not. Intent should not enter into this at this point. I cannot answer for every nation, at least not authoritatively. In the case of Britain, she was as machiavellian as any other nation, probably moreso. But her conduct and raison detre for entering the war are absolutely lawful and followed what we might call the procedures for war. The British were always careful to make sure about things like that. its a very long stretch in my view to argue that the British broke laws, or acted unlawfully in the undertakings they made to Belgium. They made it clear, from many years prior, about what they would do if Belgium was attacked. They honoured those committments. That they may have engineered that to serve other purposes may or may not have been the case, but neither is it relevant to the very narrow test of legality that can be applied in this case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

I'll try and find the books Parsifal, as soon as I have some time to digg into them, hopefully this weekend. 
The British did not just claim they had to help Belgium as a moral obligation, but they claimed the had to because of the London treaty. This was clearly false as the treaty only agreed that none of the signers would violate the neutrality of Belgium, but it did not force the participants to counter any violation of the treaty. This was clearly ment as propaganda aimed at their own population to legalise the war and raise ethousiasm. But you're right, I think the British entrance into the war was legal in the literal sence. Also, although from my view they had a 'moral guilt' in the outbreak of the war, they were not the main 'villain' in the whole story. 
I think that it is quite obvious that it was the Germans who violated several international treaties.

Edit:
Found the text of Franco-Russian military convention of 1892. Don't see the date 1917 here, will have to read my books again or retreat that statement . But the aim against Germany alone is quite obvious.


> Preamble
> 
> France and Russia, being animated by a common desire to preserve peace, and having no other object than to meet the necessities of a defensive war, provoked by an attack of the forces of the Triple Alliance against either of them, have agreed upon the following provisions:
> Article 1
> ...


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

Another background into this vital treaty behind Russia and France:


> Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance
> 
> 
> During the late 19th century many countries sought an alliance with other countries to guarantee their own safety, preserve peace and sometimes to help their economic position. this is highlighted by alliances and treaties such as the "Dual Alliance" of 1879, the "Dreikaiserbund" of 1881 and the "Reinsurance Treaty" This was also the case for both France and Russia, with them agreeing the "Franco-Russian Military Convention" on August 18th 1892 and later agreeing the "Franco-Russian Alliance" in 1893. France and Russia were animated by a common desire to preserve peace. The only reason it was possible for France and Russia to form this alliance is because Germany allowed the Reinsurance treaty to become invalid. Both countries wanted different things from the alliance but there was one common reason between them, and that was to oppose Germany - although both countries had different incentives for this. France, Russia and Germany all contributed to the alliance being formed, either through their aims or what they did.
> ...


"Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance." 123HelpMe.com. 31 Oct 2013
<Causes of the Franco-Russian Alliance :: European Europe History>.


----------



## silence (Oct 31, 2013)

Just to insert my little 2 cents (which, thanks to inflation, is now $5.29): 

If I am reading Article 2 correctly, than _any_ mobilization of _any_ kind provides legal (and I use the word loosely) justification for Russia and France to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides. This would even justify enacting the Article even if say, Italy mobilizes to attack A-H (!!!), then because one (two) of the Triple Alliance mobilized then Russia and France are to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides - even if, for whatever reason, Germany itself remains out of the Italian-AH conflict.

The Convention also specifies Germany is the country to be attacked, not Austria-Hungary nor Italy. So I guess if the convention is enacted and France and Russia breach the German frontier, then they stop at Germany's borders with Austria-Hungary, even if A-H is also at war. 

And A-H can go to war against either France or Russia alone, without German help, and the one is NOT obligated to support the other?

Someone(s) seem to be looking for any excuse to attack another someone they don't like, and want to provide a letter-of-the-law reason (excuse) for doing so while maintaining the high moral ground. "Well, gee, ma, I beat that kid up because his buddy's cousin on his mother's side once removed beat up my friend's cousin's neighbor's dog's first owner. So he was asking for it and I did what I had to do." <sigh...> My three year old nephew could see through this.

Its also interesting that France is to commit 50% more troops to the fight than Russia...


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel said:


> . But you're right, I think the British entrance into the war was legal in the literal sence. Also, although from my view they had a 'moral guilt' in the outbreak of the war, they were not the main 'villain' in the whole story..


Could you explain what 'moral guilt' Britain had at the start of the war, seeing the British only entered the war after everybody else was already at war.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

parsifal said:


> There were treaty obligations with France, Russia and Britain, well known as the Triple Entente. in the same way as germany was obligated to come the aid of Austria , the british were allied to the french, and the Russians. Its that shaky alliance system again..


There was no treaty which compelled the British come to France's or Russia's aid if attacked by either Germany or A-H 
The Triple Entente merely resolved a number of colonial disputes between the nations and an agreement to settle any further disputes in a friendly manner.
However, what they did do was place Britain on friendly relations with France and Russia at a time of deteriorating relationships with Germany and A-H.

Avalon Project - The Entente Cordiale Between England and France - April 8, 1904

Avalon Project - The Anglo-Russian Entente - 1907


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel, I believe you're right, Belgium was for public consumption. The German aggression had to be met. It upset the peace. A nation doesn't go to war because of a commitment, real or otherwise, to protect some other nation. It goes to war because it's in its interests to go to war. In this case, British interests in Europe were threatened by the German aggression. Belgium was the pretense to get involved. Had Germany gone around Belgium to attack France, Britain still would have got involved, and for the same reason, its interests were threatened.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

silence said:


> If I am reading Article 2 correctly, than _any_ mobilization of _any_ kind provides legal (and I use the word loosely) justification for Russia and France to immediately mobilize and attack Germany from both sides....


No.
All that the agreement required was for them to also mobilise their forces, and ready them to respond to any attack on either nation. There was no requirement to attack either Germany or A-H if they merely mobilised their forces and didn't attack.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Marcel, I believe you're right, Belgium was for public consumption. The German aggression had to be met. It upset the peace. A nation doesn't go to war because of a commitment, real or otherwise, to protect some other nation. It goes to war because it's in its interests to go to war. In this case, British interests in Europe were threatened by the German aggression. Belgium was the pretense to get involved. Had Germany gone around Belgium to attack France, Britain still would have got involved, and for the same reason, its interests were threatened.


The problem for the senior members of the British government who felt it was in Britain's interests to stop German domination of the continent was that even within the British cabinet there was dispute on whether Britain should get involved or not with a majority of members being opposed to a promise of support for France even as late as the 29th July , and it was worse in parliament itself and with the British population, where there was little interest in this foreign war . The attack on Belguim changed all that, it ensured British involvement.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

More precisely, Redcoat, the German aggression changed all that. Belgium was just the form it took.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> The problem for the senior members of the British government who felt it was in Britain's interests to stop German domination of the continent was that even within the British cabinet there was dispute on whether Britain should get involved or not with a majority of members being opposed to a promise of support for France even as late as the 29th July , and it was worse in parliament itself and with the British population, where there was little interest in this foreign war . The attack on Belguim changed all that, it ensured British involvement.



You should read Christopher Clarks book, there you can see from primary sources, diplomatic - notes, letters and documents, how Sir Edward Grey, supported and encouraged, Russia and France at their way and acts. Great Britain was a big player at Juli and without the support and knowledge that Great Britain will join the war, Russia and France didn't have forced the war through mobilization. 
Hold in mind, Raymond Poincaré visited St. Petersburg two weeks befor Russia mobilized at 25.07.1914 and proclaimed and and supported the way to war.
After the mobilization through Russia, Germany spoke an Ultimatum to neglect the mobilization, weather France nor Great Britain did anything to first neglect the mobilization or second, did anything for a diplomatic solution. More the opposite France also mobilized before Germany.
Belgium was the excuse for the British government for thier people to explain, why they join the war, nothing else.

France and Russia knew very well, that without Great Britain the war couldn't be won!


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2013)

Great posts, parsifal and Marcel...Belgium suffered mainly because of it's geographical position, not political.

Germany knew that it would be hit on both sides, from France and Russia, so thier idea was tomtake France out as quickly as possible and then turn to face Russia.

Now the question I have, is how would the face of WWI been altered had France gone ahead and pushed through Belgium first, as they had wanted to but hesitated when Belgium declined thier request for passage?

This is not saying WWI would not have happened had Germany not pushed through Belgium first, WWI was going to happen, no matter what. It was not a question of "if" but "when".

So again, my question is how would the events have unfolded had France pushed through Belgium first, to strike Germany? How would this have altered the alliances, if at all?


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Could you explain what 'moral guilt' Britain had at the start of the war, seeing the British only entered the war after everybody else was already at war.


Well, Britain, in the person of Sir Grey had helped getting the circumstances right for ww1. For instance when minister of was Haldane went to Berlin in 1912, he tried to lessen the tension between Germany and Britain. To his surprise the Germans were very much willing to do so. Grey, minister of foreign affairs, however didn't want that and obstructed the concept-agreement, drafted by Haldane and the Germans. He even stated to the French ambassador that he would make sure that the negotiations would not affect the good relations with France. He lost a major opportunity to prefent war there but refused. This is just one example of behaviour of Brittain (wether intended or not) that helped starting the war.
In my opinion, Grey was mainly responsible for Britain entering the war, he had a clear anti-german attitude, kept the secret negotiations with France going, even against the wishes of the rest of the government and used a false statement to explain why the UK was in war with Germany.



GrauGeist said:


> Great posts, parsifal and Marcel...Belgium suffered mainly because of it's geographical position, not political.
> 
> Germany knew that it would be hit on both sides, from France and Russia, so thier idea was tomtake France out as quickly as possible and then turn to face Russia.
> 
> ...


Difficult to say and I'm not good in these kind of speculations. I think Grey would have had a harder time to get Britain into this war. How it would have ended I don't know. I guess we would have had a stalemate war all the same.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> So again, my question is how would the events have unfolded had France pushed through Belgium first, to strike Germany? How would this have altered the alliances, if at all?


It would have ended any chance of Britain supporting France or Russia, though I'm doubtful Britain would have gone to war over it.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> It would have ended any chance of Britain supporting France or Russia, though I'm doubtful Britain would have gone to war over it.


I believe Britain would have entered on the side of France if for no better reason than their political ideologies were aligned. Russia, 1917, and their "French Revolution," if you will, and they fit right in there, as well. The political ideologies I believe explain a lot in terms of how these sides were drawn up.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> You should read Christopher Clarks book, there you can see from primary sources, diplomatic - notes, letters and documents, how Sir Edward Grey, supported and encouraged, Russia and France at their way and acts. Great Britain was a big player at Juli and without the support and knowledge that Great Britain will join the war, Russia and France didn't have forced the war through mobilization.


Problem is, the French and Russian's didn't know mobilisation meant war. It was Germany's military strategy of a quick knock out blow on France which decreed that mobilisation meant war 


> After the mobilization through Russia, Germany spoke an Ultimatum to neglect the mobilization, weather France nor Great Britain did anything to first neglect the mobilization or second, did anything for a diplomatic solution.


Great Britain was not an official ally of France, they had no say on France's actions which were in response to a treaty they did have with an official ally


> More the opposite France also mobilized before Germany.


 By a few hours, while under the mistaken impression that Germany was already mobilising


> Belgium was the excuse for the British government for thier people to explain, why they join the war, nothing else.


The British government needed a reason to join the war, the fact that certain senior members of the government thought it was in the best interests of Britain to stop German military dominance of Europe wasn't enough, they needed a moral reason, like the invasion of a innocent neutral nation with whom Britain did have a treaty.


> France and Russia knew very well, that without Great Britain the war couldn't be won!


Which is why certain members of the German High Command thought now was the time to push for war, before France and Russia (mainly Russia) became too strong, which they believed would be around 1917.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I believe Britain would have entered on the side of France if for no better reason than their political ideologies were aligned. .


Any attack by France on Belguim would override this. It would have been impossible for the British government to cast Germany in the role of aggressor if they had done so.

ps: The French government were fully aware of this and so they clearly and publically stated at the start of the lead up to war that they would fully honour Belguim neutrality.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

> Which is why certain members of the German High Command thought now was the time to push for war, before France and Russia (mainly Russia) became too strong, which they believed would be around 1917.



You realy believe this claim where ever you read it?
A country which economy was based on 90% agriculture and not well developed industry and also mainly on the repression of their people.
To me such a statement is very very long away from the truth. For Germany, France was the much more dangerous enemy.
This was also the reason they changed from von Moltkes plan to have the focal point on the east and to deal first with Russia till 1905, to the Schlieffen-Plan from 1905, because through the triple entente Treaty they were higly aware the possibility could happened they would see french and british troops.

Also your claim that Germany was the agressor is simply wrong.

I repeat this:

Russian did mobilization 25.07.1914 and crossed german borderline afternoon of 01.08.1914, *before* Germany did any mobilization or declared war. Please stay to the facts.

WWI was initiated from Russia not from Germany.
Also all historians will tell you that trigger event was the mobilization from Russia.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Problem is, the French and Russian's didn't know mobilisation meant war. It was Germany's military strategy of a quick knock out blow on France which decreed that mobilisation meant war


Well, I think under the circumstances everyone knew mobilization meant war. I don't believe the Russians or the French were fools, so I think they knew quite well what it meant.

DonL is right to say that Russian mobilization was a big spark in the already smoldering barrel of gunpowder that was Europe.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> Also all historians will tell you that trigger event was the mobilization from Russia.


The trigger event was Austro-Hungary's attack on Serbia. Russian mobilisation was merely the trigger for Germany's military strategy for a two front war


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Well, I think under the circumstances everyone knew mobilization meant war. I don't believe the Russians or the French were fools, so I think they knew quite well what it meant.


Do you have any French or Russian source to back that up.
There had been plenty of instances in the past, and even in more recent times where mobilisation didn't mean war


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> The trigger event was Austro-Hungary's attack on Serbia. Russian mobilisation was merely the trigger for Germany's military strategy for a two front war


The Russian mobilization made it possible that a local conflict escalate into a worldwar. If they hadn't done that, this war would have been a small one and the world had waited for the inevitable another opportunity to start the destruction.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Do you have any French or Russian source to back that up.
> There had been plenty of instances in the past, and even in more recent times where mobilisation didn't mean war



Well, if you look at the situation, you would understand. Under those circumstances you don't mobilize a million men to call them back. You're suggesting both France and Russia did not understand what was going on?
Austria was mobilizing against Serbia, the Russian mobilisation almost forced them to do a full mobilization. Full mobilization is just one hair from war. And in those times, two countries opposed in full mobilization always meant war.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> You realy believe this claim where ever you read it?
> .


Here is one source 
C: The First World War, 1914-1918


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Well, if you look at the situation, you would understand. Under those circumstances you don't mobilize a million men to call them back. You're suggesting both France and Russia did not understand what was going on?


Nations had mobilised before and since without war breaking out, in some nations it was/is seen as a final warning before war breaks out, not as an act of war


> Austria was mobilizing against Serbia, the Russian mobilisation almost forced them to do a full mobilization. Full mobilization is just one hair from war. And in those times, two countries opposed in full mobilization always meant war.


A-H attacked Serbia in the full knowledge that it could lead to a wider war.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

> In Germany, fear of growing isolation dominated. Austria-Hungary was Germany's last ally and thus seemed to deserve support at all cost (Italy was no longer committed to its alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary). The Germans wanted Vienna to wage war on Serbia in order to prevent the breakdown of the Habsburg Empire. The Germans feared, moreover, that the modernization, population explosion, and industrial growth of Russia would transform their eastern neighbor into a superpower that would sooner or later crush Germany. This appeared all the more threatening to the German General Staff, since their only war plan would not work any more once the Russian railroads were completed.



So from this sentence, you did your very personal interpretation and claim that germany was the agressor and did began the war?
This is an estimation nothing else.

Russia did the mobilization *and crossed german borderline 01.08.1914 in the afternoon*, before any german mobilization or declaration of war.

Edit:



> A-H attacked Serbia in the full knowledge that it could lead to a wider war.



You should ask the question to yourself: Why was this possible?

1912 Germany and Great Britain, worked hand in hand to avoid a great war at the several Balkan wars!
Now Russia threaten A-H with all force, and they could only do this because they had the full support of France and Great Britain!


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Any attack by France on Belguim would override this. It would have been impossible for the British government to cast Germany in the role of aggressor if they had done so.
> 
> ps: The French government were fully aware of this and so they clearly and publically stated at the start of the lead up to war that they would fully honour Belguim neutrality.


I don’t believe Britain would have come in at the point of the trespass had France instead of Germany initiated it. I believe it would have supported France, however, once Germany was engaged. I don't see it any other way, really. The politicians would have just had to figure out another way to hang the blame on Germany. What about, war was inevitable? What about, a preemptive strike over Belgium was necessary to gain the advantage in the war? What about, Belgium’s stubborn neutrality threatened the democratic way of life in Western Europe? And I’m just getting warmed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Nations had mobilised before and since without war breaking out, in some nations it was/is seen as a final warning before war breaks out, not as an act of war A-H attacked Serbia in the full knowledge that it could lead to a wider war.


Yeah, but not *full* mobilization.
Full mobilization is a really big step. It means your countries economy gets to a grinding hold. All in favor of the war machine. You only do that when you're quite certain you will be at war. Hardly going back then.
A-H knew fully well they would start a major war. Therefore they waited too long to decide what to do. If they had attacked immediately, I doubt if anyone would have complained. Serbia had murdered their next -in-line. In the end it took the Austrian-Hungarians a whole month to react, by then, the public opinion was against them and everyone knew how to react.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> So from this sentence, you did your very personal interpretation and claim that germany was the aggressor and did began the war?
> .


I have never claimed Germany was the aggressor who began the war, in the post I presume you are referring to I merely stated that the British government couldn't have cast Germany in the role of aggressor if France has invaded Belguim. 
The aggressor who started the war in my personal view was Austro-Hungary, and in terms of guilt for expanding the war Russia, Germany, France and Britain in that order


----------



## Marcel (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> So from this sentence, you did your very personal interpretation and claim that germany was the agressor and did began the war?
> This is an estimation nothing else.
> 
> Russia did the mobilization *and crossed german borderline 01.08.1914 in the afternoon*, before any german mobilization or declaration of war.


DonL where do you get those dates? I have August 17th as date for the Russian attack on Germany.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I don’t believe Britain would have come in at the point of the trespass had France instead of Germany initiated it. I believe it would have supported France, however, once Germany was engaged. I don't see it any other way, really. The politicians would have just had to figure out another way to hang the blame on Germany. What about, war was inevitable? What about, a preemptive strike over Belgium was necessary to gain the advantage in the war? What about, Belgium’s stubborn neutrality threatened the democratic way of life in Western Europe? And I’m just getting warmed up.


Maybe, maybe not. Trouble is for the British government is without the German attack on Belguim selling the war to the British population is difficult, and it is made impossible if Germany can cast the French in the role of aggressor to the outside world.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

I think once one member of one alliance had decided on war, all others were bound to follow. It was unavoidable once the process had started. The fact that Russia and France commenced mobilization first does not necesarily mean they were looking for war. It does mean that the germans had the most efficient mobilisation plan of any nation in Europe....they could afford to start mobilsatioon later than everyone, and still have their troops concrentrated and ready before any of their opponents. They had the most efficient railways, the most concentrated urban centres, the best depot system of any nation in Europe. Russia had the worst, of any major nation in Europe. The Germans had the strongest military, so once the mobilsation and treaty system took effect, it was inevitable that Russia, if it had the forces on hand before the germans, would attack to take advantage of local and temporary advantages. 

The problem is that once war broke out between the Austrians and Serbia, events would more or less follow a predictable course. It was unavoidable. There were a few twists here and there, such as the Belgian neutrality issue, and Italian change of sides, but the main conflagaration was almost unavoidable once the process had started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel said:


> DonL where do you get those dates? I have August 17th as date for the Russian attack on Germany.


There were official German claims that a small number of Russian troops had crossed the border on the 1st August, but it is suspected by most historians that this was merely a pretext for Germany declaring war on Russia.


----------



## silence (Oct 31, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I think once one member of one alliance had decided on war, all others were bound to follow. It was unavoidable once the process had started. The fact that Russia and France commenced mobilization first does not necesarily mean they were looking for war. It does mean that the germans had the most efficient mobilisation plan of any nation in Europe....they could afford to start mobilsatioon later than everyone, and still have their troops concrentrated and ready before any of their opponents. They had the most efficient railways, the most concentrated urban centres, the best depot system of any nation in Europe. Russia had the worst, of any major nation in Europe. The Germans had the strongest military, so once the mobilsation and treaty system took effect, it was inevitable that Russia, if it had the forces on hand before the germans, would attack to take advantage of local and temporary advantages.
> 
> The problem is that once war broke out between the Austrians and Serbia, events would more or less follow a predictable course. It was unavoidable. There were a few twists here and there, such as the Belgian neutrality issue, and Italian change of sides, but the main conflagaration was almost unavoidable once the process had started.



Heh. Sounds like the Second (?) Law of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a system will either increase or stay the same; it will never decrease.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

The Planning of the War

To understand the the inevitable march to war, and also why things are not always what they seem, it is necessary or useful to understand the background and broad nature of each nations war plans. The next series of posts that i make are intended to give some ideas of each nations war plans 

Ever since Germany had inflicted defeat upon France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, the major nations of Europe had busied themselves with plans for the next war, seen by many as inevitable given the conflicting ambitions of the major powers; which, in the case of France, included the repossession of Alsace and Lorraine, both lost to Germany as a consequence of the Franco-Prussian War.

Much is made of the German Schlieffen Plan and, to a lesser extent, the French Plan XVII. But what of Austria-Hungary's Plan B and Russia's Plan 19? This article details the primary aims of each of these plans, and discusses the rationale behind them.

France: Plan XVII

The chief aim of Plan XVII, devised by Ferdinand Foch in the wake of the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War, and taken up by French Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre in 1913, was the recapture of the territory of Alsace and Lorraine.
Entirely offensive in nature, Plan XVII made extensive use of the belief in the mystical élan vital assumed to be instilled within every Frenchman - a fighting spirit capable of turning back any enemy by its sheer power. It assumed the average French soldier to be more than a match for its German counterpart. Indeed, numerous French officers were dismissed from the army during the early stage of the war for a want of fighting spirit, including General Lanrezac following the French army's failure at Charleroi.
More technically, Plan XVII called for an advance by four French Armies into Alsace-Lorraine on either side of the Metz-Thionville fortresses, occupied by the Germans since 1871. The southern wing of the invasion forces would first capture Alsace and Lorraine (in that order), whilst the northern wing would - depending upon German movements - advance into Germany via the southern Ardennes forests, or else move north-east into Luxembourg and Belgium.

The architects of Plan XVII, which included Joseph Joffre, took little account of a possible German invasion of France through Belgium until just before war was declared; and in modifying the plan to deploy troops to meet such an eventuality, actual French activity to meet an invasion via Belgium was lacklustre at best in August 1914.

Before war broke out Joffre and his advisers were convinced that the threat of British involvement would keep Germany from invading through Belgium (with whom Britain had a treaty guaranteeing its neutrality; Germany regarded this as a mere "scrap of paper").

Whilst the French had accurately estimated the strength of the German army at the opening of the war, they did not place much emphasis on Germany's extensive use of reserve troops, having little faith in their own. This proved a serious miscalculation which, in conjunction with an underestimation of the Schlieffen Plan, almost led to 

France's undoing within a month of the outbreak of war.
Within weeks of the war's start, the French attack into Alsace and Lorraine had proved a debacle, effectively repelled by the German defences. With the inevitable advance of the Schlieffen Plan meanwhile, the French were thrown very much on the defensive.


Germany: Schlieffen Plan

Germany's Schlieffen Plan, named after its chief architect, Count Alfred von Schlieffen, was both offensive and defensive in nature.

Schlieffen - and the men who subsequently enhanced and modified his strategy, including Helmuth von Moltke, German Chief of Staff in 1914 - took as his starting assumption a war on two fronts, against France in the west and Russia in the east. The nature of the alliance system ensured that Russia was allied with France (and latterly Britain), set against Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy.
Notwithstanding the potentially enormous size of the Russian army, with its never-ending supply of men, Schlieffen assumed - largely correctly, as it turned out - that it would take six weeks or longer for the Russians to effectively mobilise their forces, poorly led and equipped as they were.

Banking on this assumption, Schlieffen devised a strategy for knocking France out of the war within those six weeks. In order to do so he would commit the vast majority of German forces in the west to form an overwhelming assault with Paris as its aim, leaving just sufficient forces in East Prussia to hold off the Russians during the latter's mobilisation process. Once France had been dealt with the armies in the west would be redeployed to the east to face the Russian menace.

In striking against France von Schlieffen determined to invade through Belgium; for tactical as well as political reasons, an invasion via Holland was discounted (Germany desired Dutch neutrality for as long as possible); and Switzerland in the south was geographically invasion-proof. Passage through the flat Flanders plains would offer the fastest route to France and victory.

Working to a tight deadline, five German armies would advance through Belgium and France in a grand wheel motion, turning through the Flanders plains north-east of France. The German forces would move from Alsace-Lorraine west through France en route for Paris. Schlieffen's often-quoted remark, "when you march into France, let the last man on the right brush the Channel with his sleeve" was based upon this turning wheel-like advance.

By outflanking the French armies von Schlieffen aimed to attack from the rear, where the French were likely to be most vulnerable. A small German force would guard the Franco-German border, enticing the French to move forward, upon which they would be attacked from the rear by the main bulk of the German army, assuring encirclement and destruction.

A side benefit of the Schlieffen Plan saw the bulk of the French resistance situated within France rather than in Germany. Even while retreating - which was by no means part of the plan - the Germans could (and did) entrench themselves deep inside French territory.

Whilst the French aimed to evict the invader from their country - and consequently constructed their own trenches lightly, never intending that they should be in use for any great length of time - the Germans dug deep, sophisticated trenches, content to remain where they were pending a further advance at some later stage.

The weakness of the Schlieffen Plan lay less in the rigidity of the timescale - for the German army very nearly succeeded in capturing Paris within the time allotted - but in its underestimation of the difficulties of supply and communication in forces so far advanced from command and supply lines.

Ultimately, it was these problems, particularly in communicating strategy from Berlin, that doomed the Schlieffen Plan. The Allied forces could rush troops to the front by use of the railway faster than the Germans could arrange fresh supplies of food and reserve troops.

Most critically, Moltke's isolation from the front line not far from Paris led to a series of poor decisions and a crucial weakening of his forces in the north. A promptly timed French counter-attack exploiting a gap in the German lines at the First Battle of the Marne set off the so-called 'race to the sea' and the onset of static trench warfare. The rapid war of movement was brought to an end.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

Austria-Hungary: Plans B and R

Austria-Hungary's plans for war are much less discussed than those of France and Germany, and with good reason. In devising first Plan B and then Plan R, Austria-Hungary assumed that the coming war would be limited to Serbia.

Plan B (for Balkans) detailed the requirement for six Austro-Hungarian armies in the field, three to invade Serbia, with a further three guarding the Russian border to dissuade an attack from that quarter.

Plan R (for Russia) essentially revised Plan B, allowing for a greater volume of troops 
to guard against Russian assistance for the Serbs in the south, whilst assuming German activity in the north. This led to four armies being deployed against Russia and two against Serbia. Whilst the chosen plan in August 1914, in the event this strategy never came to fruition, since in committing to the Schlieffen Plan Germany devoted the bulk of its manpower to the west before intending to turn its attention to the east.


Russia: Plans G, A and 19

Russia, meanwhile, put together two very different plans for war. Plan G assumed that Germany would launch the war with a full-scale attack against Russia; the opposite of what actually transpired. Unusually, Plan G was content to permit German infringement of Russia's borders, with the consequent loss of territory and large-scale casualties, pending completion of Russian army mobilisation.

In short, the Russian military assumed that the country could readily bear a string of defeats at the start of the war, such was the reserve of manpower ultimately available to the army. Once effectively mobilised, they believed that the Russian army would inevitably eject Germany from within its borders. Napoleon had failed to conquer the vastness of Russia; it was assumed that Germany would likewise fail.

Plan 19 - also known as Plan A - was less drastic in its initial sacrifice of Russian manpower. Russia's French partners pressed the Russian military to devise a more offensive war strategy.

Plan 19, devised in 1910 by General Danilov and substantially modified in 1912, correctly assumed that Germany would open the war with an attack against France rather than Russia.

This being the case, two Russian armies would advance into East Prussia and to Silesia en route to central Germany. Russia would at the same time make use of a fortress defence against invading forces.

In the event, the Russian advance into East Prussia was thrown back almost immediately upon the start of the war, with the Russian army suffering a particularly crushing defeat at Tannenberg, followed by lesser setbacks at the First and Second Battles of the Masurian Lakes.


Britain

The British did not devise a general war strategy in the same sense as France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. Unlike these powers, Britain had no particular desire for war to break out, and had no plans for expansion, although she was keen to protect her interests, in particular her trading links with her far-flung empire.

However once war broke out Britain, governed by Asquith's administration, and after some initial confused dithering, determined to come to the aid of 'Brave Little Belgium' (as Belgium was represented in the initial British propaganda recruitment campaign) and to France.

In the absence of a conscripted army, the British Expeditionary Force (or BEF) was to be transported to the continent and onwards by rail to Belgium and the French left flank. It was estimated that it would take three full weeks, 21 days, to mobilise the BEF; France banked upon mobilising within 15 days, Germany was approximately 10 days. 

.
Belgium

Belgium, by its very neutrality, could not openly plan for war. Instead, upon the declaration of war (or, in the case of Germany, invasion), the entirety of Belgium's armed forces, comprising 117,000 field troops, were concentrated west of the River Meuse in the (ultimately unsuccessful) defence of Antwerp.
Some 67,000 additional fortress troops were responsible for the defence of the forts at Liege, Namur and Antwerp. 


Serbia
The Serbian plan for war was simple: upon declaration of war the army would be doubled from five to ten divisions and placed in readiness to strike against Austria-Hungary once it became apparent what the latter's tactical intentions were.

American Neutrality

The U.S. war strategy was unique. It was determined to adopt a stance of rigid neutrality at the start of the war, and President Wilson announced the American stance to this effect shortly after war broke out, on 19 August 1914, reflecting U.S. popular opinion. Consequently the U.S. had no plans for war and played no initial part in the conflict.

Despite official neutrality, a huge leap in export to the Allies led to a vested interest - at least in the eastern states - in an Allied victory. Exports to Germany and its allies rapidly diminished in parallel to a significant rise in shipping to Britain and France.
Popular opinion in favour of the Allies began to build as news spread of Germany's allegedly aggressive tactics, which were said to include a terror campaign against 'little Belgium'.

Similarly, Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare caused much ill-feeling in the U.S. The sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915 and the Sussex in April 1916 nearly brought the U.S. into the war, and it was Germany's continued submarine policy that ultimately brought about Wilson's war address to Congress on 2 April 1917. Other factors, such as suspicions of German involvement with Mexico (via the Zimmermann Telegram), solidified popular antagonism against Germany.

Once in the war Wilson proposed a plan of sorts; it was not a war strategy but a plan to be put in place once peace had set in; the plan became known as the 'Fourteen Points'; although pushed heavily by the U.S. contingent both in the latter stages of the war and at the Versailles peace conference, these were much watered-down by the French and to a lesser extent the British, as being too idealistic.

Among the Fourteen Points were clauses renouncing secret peace treaties; guaranteeing the neutrality of the seas outside territorial borders; calling for the removal of international trade barriers; for a reduction of arms; Polish independence; and for arbitration of colonial disputes. Wilson also called for the establishment of a 'League of Nations' designed to secure ongoing peace.

Ironically, as the author of the Fourteen Points, Wilson was unable to persuade the once more isolationist U.S. Congress to ratify his own document.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

The Battle of Stalluponen, 1914

he first action on the Eastern Front, the Battle of Stalluponen (in present day Lithuania) was fought by a corps of the German Eighth Army against Russian General Rennenkampf's First Army.
Russia's planned invasion of East Prussia - which comprised a major component of their pre-war strategy, Plan 19 - was two-pronged. Rennenkampf's First Army, of 200,000 men, entered East Prussia from the north while General Samsonov's Second Army invaded from the south.

Rennenkampf's forces marched into East Prussia on 17 August 1914, following cavalry probes conducted five days earlier, the same day that General Hermann von Francois, commander of I Corps - attached to General von Prittwitz's Eighth Army - brought them to action.

Launching a frontal attack, the aggressive Francois drove the Russians back to the frontier, snapping up 3,000 prisoners in the process. Prittwitz, who had no prior knowledge of Francois's unauthorised attack, believed his strategy to be dangerous in the extreme, fearing that Francois's forces could feasibly be encircled by Rennenkampf's much larger force. He consequently ordered Francois to call off his offensive before the latter could exploit his unexpected victory.

As Francois's corps withdrew to Gumbinnen, Rennenkampf's army resumed its slow march westward into East Prussia. Francois urged Prittwitz to launch an offensive against Rennenkampf sooner rather than later. Prittwitz, encouraged by Francois's initial success, concurred, authorising a much larger attack upon the Russian First Army three days later, on 20 August, at the Battle of Gumbinnen.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

Marcel said:


> DonL where do you get those dates? I have August 17th as date for the Russian attack on Germany.



@ Marcel,

here is one internet source 
First World War.com - On This Day - 1 August 1914

Also there are primary sources from german troops and official sources from east prussia.



> There were official German claims that a small number of Russian troops had crossed the border on the 1st August, but it is suspected by most historians that this was merely a pretext for Germany declaring war on Russia.



Your next unsubstained claim.
Just as the attack to the radio transmitter Gleiwitz, where we all know that this was initiated from the Nazi's through primary sources, it is known through primary sources that Russia crossed east prussias borderline afternoon at 01.08.1914.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL said:


> @ Marcel,
> 
> here is one internet source
> First World War.com - On This Day - 1 August 1914


You need to note the wording on your source,


> Germany, having ostensibly ordered general mobilisation 5 p.m., declares war on Russia 7.10 p.m.; makes out that Russians had crossed frontier in afternoon and begun war. (Declaration drafted before noon.)


The expression 'makes out' in English implies that it shouldn't be accepted as a hard fact, and the source then points out the declaration of war was written in the morning well before the claim of any Russian advance across the border.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 31, 2013)

DonL, you will stop with the baiting. You are looking for trouble and you have found it. I see what you are doing and its not going to work. If you can't objectively discuss this topic, then I suggest you play somewhere else. Thats enough of this childish [email protected]


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 31, 2013)

I am interested in the "British and French" alliance assumption that seems to be prevalent in this discussion. From my understanding, the British Empire was very much on a "splendid isolation" basis, right up until the German invasion of Belgium. Up to that point giving only a token support to France.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I am aware of the mass "Nationalistic" war celebrations of the common folk, I refer to the inner workings of the Government.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Trouble is for the British government is without the German attack on Belguim selling the war to the British population is difficult, and it is made impossible if Germany can cast the French in the role of aggressor to the outside world.


Maybe. But then you may be giving the public too much credit. In the words of Walter Bagehot, the English have “the necessary stupidity to make democracy work.” Western democracy is being threatened by the barbaric Hun. Civilization as we know it is at the crossroads. The Continent falls, who do you think is next? We must act, now, as tomorrow, it will be too late. Denounce the pacifists as unpatriotic. It’s not that hard, really. The intellectuals will be isolated, they always are, nobody ever pays any attention to them.

I’m probably making this easier than it would be. I’m no politician. However, Britain is going to enter on the side of France. At some point, that’s going to happen. They’re ideologically-aligned. That’s why. I can’t see it any other way.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 31, 2013)

I have always wondered. 
Britain and France were enemies for so many years, and maintained an uneasy alliance since the Crimean war.
I am not suggesting a German/ Britain alliance, but perhaps a "limited" response until the German invasion of Belgium.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

Njaco said:


> DonL, you will stop with the baiting. You are looking for trouble and you have found it. I see what you are doing and its not going to work. If you can't objectively discuss this topic, then I suggest you play somewhere else. Thats enough of this childish [email protected]



Aha?

Now it is insulting to present sources against claims?


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> I have always wondered.
> Britain and France were enemies for so many years, and maintained an uneasy alliance since the Crimean war.
> I am not suggesting a German/ Britain alliance, but perhaps a "limited" response until the German invasion of Belgium.



The problem meatloaf109 was, 
that Germany was becomming a too strong economic and military competitor against Great Britain.
The balance of Power wasn't anymore balanced for Great Britain



> They’re ideologically-aligned.



I can't see this, I can only see interests. The interest of France was revenche and as always since 100 years some territory from Germany and the interests of Great Britain was to cut economic and military power from Germany.
The main competitor for Russia was Austria-Hungarian.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

oh jeez, come on....this is our second chance and its going well. stand back a while and calm down, please. i know, a bit rich coming from me, but I say this as a friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2013)

Well DonL, the source you provided proves nothing. I understand that English is not your first language, but the link you provided does not state thatthe Russians attacked. It basically states that it was claimed they attacked, but most likely not correct.

On another note...

*Marcel*, I think you are the member in this thread with the best understanding of what led and caused WW1. You certainly look at things the most objectively. Personally I think it is much needed on this forum.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

> Well DonL, the source you provided proves nothing. I understand that English is not your first language, but the link you provided does not state thatthe Russians attacked. It basically states that it was claimed they attacked, but most likely not correct.



Karl Kautsky, Max Montgelas (Hrsg.): Die deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, 1914. Bände 3: Vom Bekanntwerden der russischen allgemeinen Mobilmachung bis zur Kriegserklärung an Frankreich. Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik und Geschichte, Berlin 1927, S. 173.

translation: Karl Kautsky, Max Montgelas (Hrsg.): The german documents of the beginning of the war, 1914, Nr.3: From the emerge of the Russian mobilization till declaration of war to France

Imanuel Geiss (Hrsg.): Julikrise und Kriegsausbruch 1914. 2. Teil. Hannover 1964, S. 659 f., 763.

There you will find explicit the borderline action of Russian troops at 01.08.1914


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2013)

How about you scan and post the pages or documents pertaining to the "attack".

I can translate them to English if you like.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How about you scan and post the pages or documents pertaining to the "attack".
> 
> I can translate them to English if you like.



That will take some time, because I must order them from a public library.
I have done in the back some work of the issue WWI and have read the books for the university a while back (15 years), so I had the notes at my personal documents, but my copys are gone through the clean up rage of my ex girl-friend.

I will see to order them next week.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 31, 2013)

I also looked into the provided link and found nothing. 
As this is an English speaking forum, DonL, please provide the documents in the English language.
As a student of the history of ww1, I would appreciate it.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 31, 2013)

Sorry, cross post, took me too long to compose.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2013)

According to Florinsky, Michael T. "The Russian Mobilization of 1914", Russian troops began to enter East Prussia 7-9 August 1914. They were attempting to unhinge the German 8th Army's defence by a pincer movement. There was initial success, but the Russians suffered a huge defeat at Tannenberg which began 23 August


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

Don, Britain and France are democracies. That’s how they’re ideologically-aligned.


----------



## silence (Oct 31, 2013)

Re: Posts 101 and 102:

Parsifal, were your hands cramped into claws by the time you were done typing all that? Man, you must either have carpal tunnel syndrome or are gunning for it. Wow!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 31, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Don, Britain and France are democracies. That’s how they’re ideologically-aligned.



True, but Russia was a totalitarian, almost despotic, monarchy, yet they aligned with a democratic France.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 31, 2013)

silence said:


> True, but Russia was a totalitarian, almost despotic, monarchy, yet they aligned with a democratic France.


Russia had the equivalent of their "French Revolution" in 1917. They went the way you said with it, to that totalitarian extreme, that's true. They're not a perfect ideological fit.


----------



## DonL (Oct 31, 2013)

After some research in my private documents I have found the original report of the german 8. Army

„Meldung AoK 8 (heute 4 Uhr a.m. 2. August 1914) Bahnzerstörungsversuch und Vormarsch zwei Schwadronen Kosaken auf Johannisburg. Dadurch tatsächlicher Kriegszustand.“

Report of the 8. Army (today 4.00 a.m. 2. August 1914) Trying do destroy railways and two squadrons Cossacks on the rise to Johannisburg. Through this now actual state of war

An other report was from the General Staff:
„Nach Meldung AoK 8 (heute 4 Uhr p.m. 1. August 1914) Bahnzerstörungsversuch und Vormarsch zwei Schwadronen Kosaken auf Johannisburg. Dadurch tatsächlicher Kriegszustand.“

After the report of the 8. Army (today 4.00 p.m. 1. August 1914) Trying do destroy railways and two squadrons Cossacks on the rise to Johannisburg. Through this now actual state of war

Here was some controversy, if the General Staff has manipulated the original report of the AoK 8 about twelve hours or if the AoK did report a wrong time.
The attack to Johannisburg is from KTB and primary sources and also confirmed.

Johannisburg at East Prussia!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2013)

silence said:


> Re: Posts 101 and 102:
> 
> Parsifal, were your hands cramped into claws by the time you were done typing all that? Man, you must either have carpal tunnel syndrome or are gunning for it. Wow!



I can type 100wpm but I dont claim that stuff is mine...its called cut and paste. I didnt reference the stuff, because it does have some bits of my own as well, plus I lost the source material


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

silence said:


> True, but Russia was a totalitarian, almost despotic, monarchy, yet they aligned with a democratic France.





VBF-13 said:


> Russia had the equivalent of their "French Revolution" in 1917. They went the way you said with it, to that totalitarian extreme, that's true. They're not a perfect ideological fit.


There is an old saying: "politicians make strange bedfellows".

In otherwords, the hardest of enemies will "bury the hatchet" if they think they can get something from the other.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> On another note...
> 
> *Marcel*, I think you are the member in this thread with the best understanding of what led and caused WW1. You certainly look at things the most objectively. Personally I think it is much needed on this forum.


Thanks Chris, it's like back then, the Dutch were neutral  My grandfather was guarding the border with Belgium as a soldier at the time, I intend to follow his example. I think understanding it is too much honour for me. It's so complex and many actions can be interpreted in different ways as you can see in this thread. 

But if I can make a compliment myself, I think Parsifal is doing very well as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2013)

Thats very kind of you marcel. much appreciated. Thers a lot of things we have not fully agreed upon but so what. this is a discussion amobgst friends and an exchange of information. I know more now than when this debate started. i hope i have returned the favour

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

Exactly, what point is there in a discussion if you all agree . But you returned the favour, no worries there

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 1, 2013)

Friction generates the heat which is necessary to generate the light.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> *Friction* generates the heat which is necessary to generate the light.


Wouldn't bacon grease fix that?


----------



## silence (Nov 1, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I can type 100wpm but I dont claim that stuff is mine...its called cut and paste. I didnt reference the stuff, because it does have some bits of my own as well, plus I lost the source material



ah, you cheat. Well done!!!!


----------



## silence (Nov 1, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Wouldn't bacon grease fix that?



And here we go again!


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 1, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Wouldn't bacon grease fix that?


OK, this is my big opportunity. What is it with this bacon thing? I insist somebody tell me!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> OK, this is my big opportunity. What is it with this bacon thing? I insist somebody tell me!


Well...how would I explain this? 

Perhaps perusing this thread may shed some light on the subject! http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/all-alright-world-33712.html


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

No no, don't start, just search for the "all is allright with the world" thead and get the bacon out of this thread


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

Sorry Marcel, I couldn't resist the temptation...

I know, I'm a bad man


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

Bad Dave, you'll be spanked with bacon.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 1, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Well...how would I explain this?
> 
> Perhaps perusing this thread may shed some light on the subject! http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/all-alright-world-33712.html


Ah, the light of wisdom. I can see!


----------



## Readie (Nov 1, 2013)

I have learnt a great deal from reading this thread.
Very informative and balanced.

Thanks guys.

John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.

A bit simplistic, but here goes:
- France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
- Russia: Getting more influence in the Balkan and get free passage to the Mediterranean
- UK: Setting the balance of power in Europe favorable for them, stem the German economical threat.
- Austria-Hungary: Maintain their superpower status, keeping grip on the Balkan and deny the Russians expansion of influence in the Balkan
- Germany: Becoming an imperial power and trying to compete with the UK. Keeping the Elzas. Edit: survival: war before Russia becomes too strong. 
- Italia: trying to get parts of Austria-Hungary territory.
- Serbia: trying to get a pan-slavic country on the Balkan, in which Serbia would be the main power.

I did not mention the already known alliances, but tried to find the deeper, 'personal' motives per country to strive for war at that time. I think I got the main culprits here, but if I forgot any, please say so.
Please shoot at it if you want to. I don't claim this the truth, only my believes and conclusions I made. I also don't believe it is complete in any way 

Parsifal, sorry for not including violating Belgian neutrality. I know it was a legitimate reason for the UK, but like DonL I don't believe this to be the main reason for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

That's a pretty good breakdown of events, Marcel.

Actually, had Germany not engaged France (either through Belgium or not), it looks pretty clear that WWI was going to erupt from the Balkan region no matter what. Austria and Russia aside, the skirmishing already going on prior to the 1914 outbreak of war was already pushing tensions to the breaking point. The Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania were already involved in the First and Second Balkan war (October 1912 - May 1913 and June 1913 - August 1913, respectively) so WWI's fuse was already lit...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Nov 1, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.
> 
> A bit simplistic, but here goes:
> - France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
> ...


Reasonable overview, but for Germany I would add the nagging fear within the German military high command that Russia was becoming militarily stronger and that soon Germany would be unable to win any two front war, which lead to the view, when the situation started escalating, that 'now' would be better than 'later'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Reasonable overview, but for Germany I would add the nagging fear within the German military high command that Russia was becoming militarily stronger and that soon Germany would be unable to win any two front war, which lead to the view, when the situation started escalating, that 'now' would be better than 'later'.


True, I agree that should be added. That fear was a big motive.


----------



## DonL (Nov 1, 2013)

I want to add, that in general the german high command overestimated the Russians so the point is valid.

But this nagging and excessive overestimation of the Russians came from one man.

Helmuth von Moltke the Younger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he was mainly chief of the General Staff, because Wilhelm II wanted his "own von Moltke".
He was far far away to be at eye level with this von Moltke, his Uncle:

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sp please don't mix this two, that's very different persons and personalitys.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> I want to add, that in general the german high command overestimated the Russians so the point is valid.
> 
> But this nagging and excessive overestimation of the Russians came from one man.
> 
> ...


Actually I think the germans were right to think so. The 'nagging' sounds a bit insulting, but I think the fear of the germans was well founded. It would have been much more difficult to beat the Russians a few years later. Unfortunately for them they did not anticipate the trenchware in the west. On the other hand, who did?


----------



## redcoat (Nov 1, 2013)

Marcel said:


> The 'nagging' sounds a bit insulting,


It wasn't meant in an insulting way. I just used it as a way of describing a fear that was preying on the minds of the high command

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Nov 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> After some research in my private documents I have found the original report of the german 8. Army
> 
> „Meldung AoK 8 (heute 4 Uhr a.m. 2. August 1914) Bahnzerstörungsversuch und Vormarsch zwei Schwadronen Kosaken auf Johannisburg. Dadurch tatsächlicher Kriegszustand.“
> 
> ...


It seems to me far more likely that the General Staff manipulated the report, they had very good political and propaganda reasons to do so.


ps: Thanks for posting the info


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 1, 2013)

One of the problems with any documentation, even (or especially) official documents is that people lie, and they lie in writing as much (or more) than in speaking. This is (probably) especially true of documents that governments, particularly non-democratic governments, deign to release to the public. Of course, government officials also lie to other government officials, either directly or by deliberate omission of information that doesn't support an action that one group of officials deem desirable. 

This is, of course, a big problem with historical research: _nothing_ is entirely reliable.


----------



## DonL (Nov 1, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> One of the problems with any documentation, even (or especially) official documents is that people lie, and they lie in writing as much (or more) than in speaking. This is (probably) especially true of documents that governments, particularly non-democratic governments, deign to release to the public. Of course, government officials also lie to other government officials, either directly or by deliberate omission of information that doesn't support an action that one group of officials deem desirable.
> 
> This is, of course, a big problem with historical research: _nothing_ is entirely reliable.



In general I would agree, but this sentence:


> particularly non-democratic governments



I don't think non-democratic governments are special to this, which we can see at the very actual issue about the NSA, the NSA lie to every issue they are confronted!
And to mention this, at this thread as off-topic, the atmosphere against the USA in Germany, wasn't as any time as bad as now.
The exxagerated surveillance in Germany and the surveillance of the cell phone of chancelor Merkel was very clear one step too much.
The atmosphere here in Germany is more worst as to the time of George W. Bush, and I have thought this isn't possible.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> the atmosphere against the USA in Germany, wasn't as any time as bad as now.


I'm sure the U.S. wasn't very popular with the German government in the early/mid 1940's, either

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 1, 2013)

I can only speak for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2013)

i think marcel has pretty much nailed the underlying reasons for the war. There is still that very delicate and potentially explosive issue of "who started it". Im a traditionalist when it comes to that issue. I think it gets down to two culprits, and I cant make up my mind. I think it was either Austria or Serbia, or probably both.

Wioth regard to Tsarist Russia, it was a nation with great potential, but deep seated social fissures, that held it back in every sense. Until that was addressed, the russians had no hope really. They had a far greater risk of internal revolution over external conquest. The Russian leadership was however very dismissive of the aspirations of their lower classes, and virtually no significant middle class. The failure of the Russians against the Japanese should have opened peoples eyes as to the well hidden weaknesses within russian capability. It was a misjudgement the European military establishments had been making for quite a while. When the Americans invaded Mexico in 1840, most European observers predicted a lay down Mexican victory. They failed to appreciate that Mexico basic raw materials, their manpower, suffered from such deep seated corruption and social schisms, , made worse by the grinding poverty and lack of education in their enlisted ranks, as to render the mexican army that fought in the Veracuz campaign basically impotent. In the First World War, the armies of Russia, Italy, Turkey and to an extent Austria, suffered similar problems. The french had a faulty ultra offensive doctrine, but there was nothing really wrong with their fighting material. The manpower of Imperial Germany and Britain and the Commonwealth did quite well, though the boorish leadership of the british was a big let down.

I would claim that the best troops of the war were the Canadians, the Australians and the new Zealanders. The Germans produced excellent manpower, and coupled it with a thoroughly modern doctrine from 1916 (Von Hutiers tactcs), but these were eventually matched, then bettered by the ANZACS and Canadians. It took the Commonwealth a long time to work out the best "modern" tactics and techniques to break the stalemate , it has to be said, but Monahs and Curries attention to detail, emphasis on all arms and close teamwork are the methods still used to this day to break fixed positions and destroy static lines. .


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 2, 2013)

"....it has to be said, but Monahs and Curries attention to detail, emphasis on all arms and close teamwork are the methods still used to this day to break fixed positions and destroy static lines."

Agreed. Well said.


----------



## Shinpachi (Nov 2, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I can type 100wpm but I dont claim that stuff is mine...its called cut and paste. I didnt reference the stuff, because it does have some bits of my own as well, plus I lost the source material



I have been guessing so, parsifal.
You are a great researcher and writer.
It's cool.


----------



## Shinpachi (Nov 2, 2013)

DonL said:


> I can only speak for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland!



I know how you feel, DonL but discussion is only discussion here unless we are politicians.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 2, 2013)

I think the rise of the German navy was a huge worry to thier Lordships.

One could say the British had to stop that. Cant have a new imperial superpower with a powerful navy. That job was taken.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2013)

Parsifal, to me there is no question who started the war. It was Austria-Hungary when they fired upon the Serbian capital. Those were the first shots in the war.

I have no opinion as to who had the 'best troops'. I'm not really sure what would define that. I think overall the military leadership sucked big time during the war in all involved armies. Many incomprehensible or naive strategies, leading to millions of dead soldiers while gaining nothing. I don't believe the British were alone in this.

As for the troops themselves. One can only feel sorry for what they had to endure and admire the spirit of those who did. Last week I read 'all is quiet on the western front' (The german version 'Im Westen nicht Neues') again. Makes quite an impression and makes one wonder why the Germans were so eager to start another war again 21 years later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 2, 2013)

I don't know who started it but do know my Grandfather was sent off to France with the BEF in 1914 and came back in 1919.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2013)

yulzari said:


> I don't know who started it but do know my Grandfather was sent off to France with the BEF in 1914 and came back in 1919.


My Grandfather went over with the U.S. Army cavalry in 1917, made it almost to the end before having having his horse shot out from under him during a battle, losing most of his foot in the process.

I wish I knew more about the details, but not much was ever said about his experiences (he passed away shortly before I was born)


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2013)

parsifal said:


> . The manpower of Imperial Germany and Britain and the Commonwealth did quite well, though the boorish leadership of the british was a big let down.


I actually think the British military leadership did reasonably well, if not better than most. They certainly took a great deal of care in the wellfare of their troops in the periods between attacks, far better than any of the other major nations
It also must be remembered that the very small British and Commonwealth armies were built up to a massive size in a very short space of time, a lot of their commanders were as inexperienced as their troops.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I actually think the British military leadership did reasonably well, if not better than most. They certainly took a great deal of care in the wellfare of their troops in the periods between attacks, far better than any of the other major nations


Oh come on, Battle of the Somme, Gallipoli, Passendale? Bunch of cockups, unimaginative leadership many casulties for questionable goals which in the end did not gain anything. Leaders were not involved, thus giving orderes that only made the bloodbath worse. Don't see any great leadership in there, but as the Germans and the French were no better (Verdun, Marne etc) I would all give them very low marks. 

At least the Germans won something, they beat the Russians fair and square, although one could question wether the germans were so good or that the Russians were so bad.

The worst thing of WW1 is the sheer stupidity of it all. Generals who were not in touch with reality did not learn anything of the experience of earlier battles and caring more about their own ego than about their troops kept on feeding bodies to the big meatgrinder. I always get tears in my eyes when I read about it.:
- Ieper around 1,000,000
- Gallipoli 500,0000
- Verdun 600,000
- Somme 1,200,000
-Isonso 200,000
The list goes on and on.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2013)

Marcel said:


> At least the Germans won something,.


They actually lost. As for winning and the British army of WW1, I suggest you read up on the Hundred Days Offensive.


----------



## Readie (Nov 2, 2013)

Don't forget to include the Commonwealth men in the 'British Army' title Redcoat. The Canadians and Aussie's took a real beating....


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2013)

redcoat said:


> They actually lost. As for winning and the British army of WW1, I suggest you read up on the Hundred Days Offensive.



My remark was meant as cynical, clearly did not land. I don't think anyone won anything in ww1. Don't fool yourself. The allies only 'won' in the end because they got help from their cross-atlantic cousins. These were 'fresh' while al other were tired and bored with 4 years of pointlessness. The Germans just trew the towel.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2013)

Readie said:


> Don't forget to include the Commonwealth men in the 'British Army' title Redcoat. The Canadians and Aussie's took a real beating....


And they gave out a real beating as well, 

You are quite right, I should have written British and Commonwealth, not just British.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2013)

What about the French? After all the 100 days offensive was led by Foch. 
For me the most underpraised army in ww1 are the Belgians. They played a keyrole at the IJzer and fought valliantly with the sparse means they had. Yet they are hardly ever mentioned.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2013)

Marcel said:


> My remark was meant as cynical, clearly did not land. I don't think anyone won anything in ww1. Don't fool yourself. The allies only 'won' in the end because they got help from their cross-atlantic cousins.


The United States main effect on the battlefield was to force the Germans to throw everything into their spring offensive before they arrived. The failure of this offensive along with it's huge casualties played a major part in the collapse of the German army later in the year


> These were 'fresh' while al other were tired and bored with 4 years of pointlessness.


In the Hundred Days campaign, it was the British and Commonwealth forces which took the lead role, ably supported by the French.The US forces played their part but it was mainly in a supporting role.


> The Germans just trew the towel.


In other words they admitted they were defeated.

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/general-interest/193-final-one-hun.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 2, 2013)

For my money the best book on the British army in WW1 is 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' by Gordon Corrigan.

He does a brilliant job of setting things in a real context and not rehashing 1930's intellectual myths.

Buy it, borrow it but you must read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2013)

Marcel said:


> For me the most underpraised army in ww1 are the Belgians. They played a keyrole at the IJzer and fought valiantly with the sparse means they had. Yet they are hardly ever mentioned.


Indeed, their contribution to the Allied victory is often overlooked, yet as you point out they did fight valiantly and are fully deserving of praise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Oh come on, Battle of the Somme, Gallipoli, Passendale? Bunch of cockups, unimaginative leadership many casulties for questionable goals which in the end did not gain anything. Leaders were not involved, thus giving orderes that only made the bloodbath worse. Don't see any great leadership in there, but as the Germans and the French were no better (Verdun, Marne etc) I would all give them very low marks.
> 
> At least the Germans won something, they beat the Russians fair and square, although one could question wether the germans were so good or that the Russians were so bad.
> 
> ...



Just go to Verdun and visit the battle fields as well as the Douaumont ossuary there. Absolutely amazing the utter pointless loss of life by both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

In terms of outcome, the allies were the eventual clear winners, in the sense they could outlast an utterly exhausted and disintegrating Germany. One only has to read the German transcripts from various sources to understand that. Germany was imploding as a result of a number of issues....the effects of the blockade, a crisis in morale in the army, but also clear evidence of a collapsing frontline as the allies finally got the better of the heavy German defences at the frontier. in relation to the military operations, whilst the newly arriving Americans were having some effect, as evidenced by their efforts at Meuse Argonne, they actually had not really had a decisive effect. Meuse Argonne was perhaps the most expensive, and least successful of the great offensives that combined to be the 100 days. If the fighting had continued I have no doubts the Americans would have become a decisive factor with the fresh troops and rapidly increasing knowledge of the new techniques of warfare now so vital for successful operations.

The war ended however, with an unsatisfactory negotiated peace. A number of people have argued that it was necessary for the Allies to accept the unsatisfactory peace because they too were reaching the limits of endurance within their societies. Certain elements and units of the allied armies were also showing signs of cracking under pressure, but allied problems, both inside their military, and also in society as a whole, paled into nothing compared to what was happening to Germany.

Perhaps the allied armies might have cracked, perhaps the Germans may have rallied, but certain officers did not think so. Pershing was all for continuingt, until Berlin was captured and unconditional surrender secured. He was supported by both Monash and Currie. The armies delivering the hammer blows on the Germans were showing no signs of cracking or losing steam. in the case of the Australians, after more than a month of rest and reinforcement, I Aus Corps was moving up to the front line to recommence and maintain the pressure on the retreating Germans. I understand that the Canadians were pulling up for some much needed rest. There were several Corps of British Troops, that might be described as "assault troops" moving up to relieve the Canadians, and the Americans, having won a hard fought victory at Meuse Argonne were arriving in decisive numbers to continue the pressure. There was no rest for the Germans, and they knew it. Germany was not stabbed in the back, they were not robbed of victory, or tricked into defeat. They were facing annihilation, and their leadership knew it . They surrendered under the best possible conditions that they could. What happened however, is that the 14 points they thought they were going to work under were essentially hijacked and altered during the 1919 negotiations. By then Germany was already starting to come apart at the seams


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2013)

Yup that's true. I admit the Germans were in the end defeated. One wonder if that also means that the Allies won or maybe all sides lost in the end. 
German civilans finally realised that all their suffering was only for the Kaiser's ego and decided it was enough. Much unrest was the result and there was a great rise in communism and the German leaders realised they needed their army in their own country. This unrest also spread into the ranks of the soldiers on the front. After 4 years of all this, who could blame them?
I think the Amercans were important psychological as it showed the Germans they could not win. The americans had not suffered 4 years of massacre. It also boosted the moral of the allies which had been very low during the spring offensive. The 100 days however although won by the Allies was not a glorious victory. Casualties remained very high and the whole offensive was very costly in human lives to both sides. On the whole, the 100 days caused 2,000,000 casualties, rougly equally shared between both parties. The fact that some wanted to fight on until Berlin only shows that the Allied commanders were willing to sacrifice another million soldiers in this pointless battle. 

In my eyes that the peace was unsatisfactory and ineffective can be blamed on the french. Instead of realising that they needed an end to all the competition and hate between the European countries, they tried to get their revenche and tried to break Germany economically. The clearer thinking of the Americans and to some extend the British were brushed aside and we all know what happened. Germany remained full of unrest en feelings of revench and unjustice. It was a perfect breedingground for ultra-nationalists, especially the NAZI's and led to another even more gruwesome war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 3, 2013)

If there is a german General to honor at WWI, I would pick 

Otto Liman von Sanders

I think he was the real man behind the defense success of Gallipoli and also he prevented at his command area any genocide at the Armenian people.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 3, 2013)

yulzari said:


> For my money the best book on the British army in WW1 is 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' by Gordon Corrigan.
> 
> He does a brilliant job of setting things in a real context and not rehashing 1930's intellectual myths.
> 
> Buy it, borrow it but you must read it.



An excellent book that shoots down many of the myths of Britains (Includes all Commonwealth and Empire forces) WWI campaigns. British generals and politicians made mistakes but name a general who never made a mistake.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 3, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.
> 
> A bit simplistic, but here goes:
> - France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
> ...


I've just realised something.
We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 3, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I've just realised something.
> We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.



After the Breslau and Goeben were donated to the Turkish Navy, the Breslau bombarded Theodosia (Oct 21). The Turks apologized (Nov 2) and blamed the attack on German officers still on the Breslau, but Russia claimed it was too late and the bombardment was an act of war, declaring war on that same day. The Allies demanded reparations, removal of the German officers, and interment of the German ships until the war ended. But before the Turks could even reply the UK and France declared war (Nov 5). Turkey had originally declared Neutrality on Aug 18. They had also secretly forged an alliance with Germany on Aug 2.

That's the crux of it. In Sept 1911 Italy had taken Triploi from Turkey, apparently because of the formation of the Triple Entente. As well, Russia had long coveted the Dardanelles as a route to the Med. Seems like things were just looking to blow eventually (which sadly seems to be the general state of the Balkans).


----------



## Readie (Nov 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just go to Verdun and visit the battle fields as well as the Douaumont ossuary there. Absolutely amazing the utter pointless loss of life by both sides.




Totally agree Chris, I have been to the Somme,Ypres and Cambrai.... The battle ground, endless cemeteries and history speak volumes about the human race.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Nov 3, 2013)

General Erich Ludendorff praised the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters. "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."

The phrase Lions Led by Donkeys was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."

I'm not saying that this book is a historical reference piece, but as a book about WW1 it warrants the time to read it.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I've just realised something.
> We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.



you're absolutely right, how could I forget?

I think the Turkish motive is a little obscure. They had been fighting the Russians in the Krim war in the 1850'ies and the British had been their major friend since then. They even had a British admiral to run their navy. But the public opinion in the UK turned against the Turks because of the way they treated minorities in their country. Then the UK and Russia got a treaty together and the friendship was over. It became worse when France and the UK refused to lend money and the Germans stepped in to help out.When France and the UK also stopped the military cooperation (turkish officers were trained there), Germany also helped out. This drove the Turks into the arms of the Germans. It helped that they had a common enemy, being Russia. However, when the war broke out, the Turks were still neutral. Then the British made one final mistake. They ceased 2 Turkish warships that were being build in the UK without warning or negotiations. Again the Germans stepped in and offered the Turks 2 ships, the Goeben and the Beslau. This finally brought the Turks in the camp of the central powers. These two ships, still fully manned with German crew started to shoot at Russian ports in the Black sea, which caused Russia to declare war on the Turks.

Now the question of their motive. I believe they were afraid that if Russia would win this war, they would be next. After all one of Russia's motives was to get a passage to the Mediterranean. Germany, their only ally, would have been beaten already and no help could be expected from the Western powers, who would probably openly support the Russians. In order to prevent such a situation, they had to side with the Germans in this war in the hope that side would win.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 3, 2013)

Turkey (Ottoman Empire) wanted to preserve thier Empire and looked to recover lost territory if the war went well for Germany and Austria.

Based on early Central power victories, this convinced the Turks that an alliance with Germany would be beneficial to the Ottoman Empire. Add to that, the suspicion that the Allied powers (Triple Entente) wanted to carve up the Ottoman Empire, gave the Turkish Minister of War (Enver Pasha) all the evindence he needed to press his case for the alliance and war.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2013)

Readie said:


> General Erich Ludendorff praised the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters. "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."
> 
> The phrase Lions Led by Donkeys was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."
> 
> I'm not saying that this book is a historical reference piece, but as a book about WW1 it warrants the time to read it.



I never understood why they retained General Haig. I personally think they should replaced him for incompetence. His terrible performance at the Somme was beyond believe. He refused to even look at the way the battle at Verdun was going. Had he even taken one eye from his teapot and learned anything from that Battle and what artillery did to defenses, many young man would have still been alive at the end of that day.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Nov 3, 2013)

Readie said:


> General Erich Ludendorff praised the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters. "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."


The phase has a long history, it was first used in reference to European troops during the Crimean war, then the Franco-Prussian war, the Boxer Revolution, and for the British French and German forces in WW1


Lions led by donkeys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I never understood why they retained General Haig. I personally think they should replaced him for incompetence. His terrible performance at the Somme was beyond believe. He refused to even look at the way the battle at Verdun was going. Had he even taken one eye from his teapot and learned anything from that Battle and what artillery did to defenses, many young man would have still been alive at the end of that day.



Haig was a "good officer" in the sense that his staff was competent. But he had a callous disregard for the survival of his men and continued with offensives long after it was obvious they were going nowhere fast. The Somee offensives are witness to that. He also was sceptical of the value of tanks and resisted any new theories on warfare. he saw infantry as the battering rams to open gaps through which the cavalry were to pour. That such breakthroughs never happened was a lesson he should have learned, but took a long time to do so.

Eventually Haig began to realize that things needed to change, and his benevolent neglect allowed his Corps and Army commanders to oush to the forefront in 1918.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> He also was sceptical of the value of tanks and resisted any new theories on warfare.


That is simply not true. Haig was impressed with the idea of tanks and rushed them into service as quickly as he could, in fact he often gets criticized for rushing them into service before they were ready for operations.

Tanks in the Somme | Days Gone By


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

I think your right. My mistake. Still, he did not do well with tanks. monash observed their failure and determined the repair teams needed to be as close to the front a possible. The tank formation attached to I Aus had a better serviceability rate as a result


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

The Somme. The magnitude of the battle still stuns the imagination. The Somme was an epic of both slaughter and futility; a profligate waste of men and materiel such as the world had never seen. On the morning of July 1, 1916, 110,000 British infantrymen went "over the top." In a few hours, 60,000 of them were casualties. Nearly 20,000 of these were either dead already or would die of their wounds, many of them lingering for days between the trenches, in no man's land. The attacking forces did not gain a single one of their objectives. i believe it remains the single most costly day in terms of casualties in the entire history of the British Army. 


Unbelievably, despite the obvious carnage Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, chief of staff of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and architect of the battle, thought the battle had made a deep effect. . On the day after the debacle, stating that the enemy "has undoubtedly been shaken and has few reserves in hand," he discussed with subordinates methods for continuing the offensive.

Which he did, with a kind of transcendent stubbornness, for another four months, until winter weather forced an end to the campaign, if not the fighting. By then, Haig's army had suffered more than 400,000 casualties. For the British, in the grave judgment of noted military historian John Keegan, "the battle was the greatest tragedy…of their national military history" and "marked the end of an age of vital optimism in British life that has never been recovered."

But Douglas Haig still has any defenders, which i find most incredible. . First, because he still has defenders who—in spite of those inconclusive, costly battles—would claim he was not in fact an unsuccessful commander. At the end of the war, after all, the army he commanded—and had almost ruined—was, if not victorious, then plainly on the winning side. Still, at the other extreme, one can argue persuasively that Haig did not merely fail to achieve his stated objectives in the great battles of the Somme and Ypres. He failed in a much grander sense; failed classically in the fashion of Pyrrhus, who lamented after the battle at Asculum, "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."

While the controversy over Haig has never been settled, there was no question about his fitness for command when he took over the British forces on the Western Front after the failures of 1915. The battles at Arras (first battle) and Loos had been badly planned and managed, captured little ground and resulted in what seemed at the time heavy casualties. Then–BEF commander Sir John French was exhausted, demoralized and lacked confidence in himself and that of his immediate subordinates. He was replaced by Haig, who was, in the words of Winston Churchill, "first officer of the British Army. He had obtained every qualification, gained every experience and served in every appointment requisite for the General Command." And Haig was as confident as he was qualified. Churchill, again: "The esteem of his military colleagues found a healthy counterpart in his own self-confidence….He was as sure of himself at the head of the British army as a country gentleman on the soil which his ancestors had trod for generations and to whose cultivation he had devoted his life."


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Haig was a "good officer" in the sense that his staff was competent. But he had a callous disregard for the survival of his men and continued with offensives long after it was obvious they were going nowhere fast.



Incorrect British casualtie figures as a proportion of serving men were better than German and French casualty rates. British soldiers were generally better fed and equipped than German and French soldiers and a wounded British soldier was more likely to survive thanks to a better medical system, the British Army had a dentists corp with nearly a thousand fully trained dentists. If your going to base your attacks on books by Alan Clark and Lloyd George two men who if they had written that the Sun rose in the East I would need to check first then you need to do more reading. Try reading John Terraine, Les Carlyon and Tim Travers they dont pull punches and are highly critical of some of Haigs record but they dont try to carry out politically motivated hatchet jobs on Haig. Some efforts by Marxist historians in the 60s to rewrite the history of WWI dont even merit the description of history but should be put into the fantasy section of the library.

Haig is most often critisised for carrying the Somme offensive past its natural time. Conveniently forgetting that the French High Command put massive pressure on Britain to start early before reserves had fully built up and put continued pressure to maintain the offensive to relieve pressure on Verdun. If you read about how the tactics changed over the whole Somme campaign you can see how British tactics changed radically over the period. British Army casualty records are reasonably accurate and include all casualties from a man knocked down by a truck 50 miles from the front to the number of men taken prisoner. German and French records are not as detailed and for obvious reasons German records have many holes in them. The casualties for the whole Somme area from July to December 1916 is British and Empire forces suffered 530,289 casualties French approx 426,00, German between 600 and 700,000. A massive butchers bill but not the mythical numbers some so called historians like to use to beat the generals about the head with. It was total war for the first time and total attrition.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> For the British, in the grave judgment of noted military historian John Keegan, "the battle was the greatest tragedy…of their national military history" and "marked the end of an age of vital optimism in British life that has never been recovered."



Keegan is a readable historian very good on the minutiae of history but you have to remember he was a High Tory grandee who brought a certain political view to things. He has been desribed as politically naive by some other historians, I would describe his political views as very uncomfortable.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 3, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Incorrect British casualtie figures as a proportion of serving men were better than German and French casualty rates. British soldiers were generally better fed and equipped than German and French soldiers and a wounded British soldier was more likely to survive thanks to a better medical system, the British Army had a dentists corp with nearly a thousand fully trained dentists. If your going to base your attacks on books by Alan Clark and Lloyd George two men who if they had written that the Sun rose in the East I would need to check first then you need to do more reading. Try reading John Terraine, Les Carlyon and Tim Travers they dont pull punches and are highly critical of some of Haigs record but they dont try to carry out politically motivated hatchet jobs on Haig. Some efforts by Marxist historians in the 60s to rewrite the history of WWI dont even merit the description of history but should be put into the fantasy section of the library.
> 
> Haig is most often critisised for carrying the Somme offensive past its natural time. Conveniently forgetting that the French High Command put massive pressure on Britain to start early before reserves had fully built up and put continued pressure to maintain the offensive to relieve pressure on Verdun. If you read about how the tactics changed over the whole Somme campaign you can see how British tactics changed radically over the period. British Army casualty records are reasonably accurate and include all casualties from a man knocked down by a truck 50 miles from the front to the number of men taken prisoner. German and French records are not as detailed and for obvious reasons German records have many holes in them. The casualties for the whole Somme area from July to December 1916 is British and Empire forces suffered 530,289 casualties French approx 426,00, German between 600 and 700,000. A massive butchers bill but not the mythical numbers some so called historians like to use to beat the generals about the head with. It was total war for the first time and total attrition.



So, somewhere around a million and a half men, give or take, on both sides. 


Let that sink in.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2013)

There were heavy caualties throughout the war, on all sides. Even during the so-called success period of 1918, casualties were etremely heavy. Its a question of what objectives were achieved as a result of those butchers bills. in the case of the Somme, none of the objectives (principally the destruction of the German defence lines) were achieved. that did not stop Haig from pouring more and more men into the grinder.

This is what the AWM has to say on the Somme

"The assault was originally planned as a joint French–British offensive which was part of a wider strategy of attacking Germany simultaneously on the Western and Eastern Fronts, with the aim of destroying Germany’s reserves of manpower. The massive German attack launched on the French fortress of Verdun on 21 February 1916 significantly reduced the French contribution to the Somme campaign, which was also being launched, in part, to divert the Germans’ attention from Verdun. Britain’s “new army’’ – a volunteer force similar to the AIF – was required to step up.

At the start of 1916, the French called on the Brits to play a bigger role on the ground, which they agree to do at the Somme,” explains Peter Burness, a senior historian at the Memorial. “But these were not professional forces, or large conscript ones such as the German and French armies were – these were men from all walks of life who joined up in their communities.” Hundreds of men from communities large and small would join up together, give their units nicknames such as “Pals”, and die together, leaving their towns and villages devastated.

Britain’s generals lacked confidence in the abilities of their men, which meant there was a distinct lack of imagination or innovation in the tactics employed.

“The application of artillery was still rather simple in 1916: to bombard the enemy’s position, then send in the infantry and charge through after with the cavalry,” Burness says. “The British and French were always looking for the breakthrough, to fracture the enemy and drive them out. They wanted to see the Germans in disarray, to make a wild retreat.”

The Germans, however, were deeply entrenched on the Somme. They had been honing their defences and their war weapons since the trench line zig-zagged its way across France and Belgium in the autumn of 1914. The Germans had built an impregnable and sophisticated wall of barbed wire, deep dugouts and machine-gun posts on favourable locations in difficult country. They had a formidable position on the Somme, and the British underestimated their preparedness.

Despite days of shelling immediately before the assault on 1 July, the British were unable to smash the German dugouts, and belts of wire remained uncut. The Germans also had many guns that outranged those of the British, or were kept silent and well hidden until the offensive began.

In his memoir The old front line, British poet laureate John Masefield, who spent months at the front, includes a German’s account of the start of the assault, at 7.30 am on July 1:


They came on at a steady easy pace as if expecting to find nothing alive in our front trenches ... a few minutes later, when the leading British line was within 100 yards, the rattle of machine-guns and rifle fire broke out from along the whole line of craters. 

The advance rapidly crumpled under this hail of shells and bullets. All along the line men could be seen throwing their arms into the air and collapsing never to move again. Badly wounded rolled about in their agony, and others less severely injured crawled to the nearest shell-hole. The noise of battle became indescribable ... Again and again the extended lines of British infantry broke against the German defence like waves against a cliff, only to be beaten back. It was an amazing spectacle of un-exampled gallantry, courage and bull-dog determination on both sides.

All along the 30-kilometre front, the same annihilation was taking place. In his book, The first day on the Somme, Martin Middlebrook records the experience of Private W. Slater, 18th Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment (known as the 2nd Bradford Pals):


For some reason nothing seemed to happen to us at first; we strolled along as though walking in a park. Then, suddenly, we were in the midst of a storm of machine-gun bullets and I saw men beginning to twirl round and fall in all kinds of curious ways as they were hit – quite unlike the way actors do it in films.

The first day of the Somme offensive has a relevance to the British today that is akin to the landing at Gallipoli for Australians.

“It was a day of high hope and expectation, and it ended in disaster,” Burness says. “To a new generation, that realisation had a real impact. There was so much expectation that was destroyed on the battlefield.”

Despite the enormous losses of that first battle at the Somme, the offensive continued through summer and a particularly wet autumn until the first snow fell on 18 November 1916. The Australian Imperial Force, consisting of men who had fought at Gallipoli and fresh volunteers from home, arrived at the Somme in late July.

The major contribution of Australian troops to the Somme offensive was in the fighting around Pozières between 23 July and 3 September. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Australian Divisions suffered more than 24,000 casualties at Pozières, including 6,741 dead. Official war correspondent C.E.W. Bean described the small village as “more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth”.

When the Somme offensive ended, the allied forces had managed to advance only 12 kilometres. It had come at a cost of 430,000 British and Dominion troops and 200,000 French casualties. The offensive destroyed Britain’s mass volunteer army, and for the rest of the war it would be reliant upon conscription for reinforcements. It had also resulted in heavy German casualties, about 230,000 according to current scholarship. The German army never recovered from its loss of experienced junior officers and non-commisisoned officers on the Somme. To those who fought there, and for the present generation, the Somme was synonymous with slaughter".

Castigationg haig for his lack of imagination in these offensives is more than justified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

Good post Parsifal. The battle at Verdun also showed the artillery was not very effective against entrenched troops and barbwire. The barbwire usually ended up in a big mess, making it even more impenetrable then when it was still intact. The troops usually could shelter and be on their post again when the soldiers arrived (attacks were always necessarily be preceded by a pause in the shelling). But Haig had clearly not studied that battle and was confident that the shelling had successfully broken the German spirit. This mindset resulted in the "steady easy pace" of the soldiers and the great massacre of that first day. After that day Haig just pressed on in the same stupid manner, disregarding all losses. I doubt if he even knew what was going on. 

I don't know why fastmongrel says 500,000 British is not a mythical number. I wrote in an earlier post that the Somme claimed 1,2 million casualties on all sides. I think it's massive and unbelievable.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

What I am trying to say about the casualty figures for the Somme is that though the butchers bill was high it was not neccesarily high when compared to other battles. The British Army suffered much higher casualty figures during 1918, the Normandy campaign and the Battle of the Imjin River in Korea. German and French forces suffered higher casualty rates pretty much straight through the First world war, why does no one attack German or French Generals for there lack of consideration for the troops. 

Look at the death rates as a % of population France 4.3%, Germany 3.8%, Austria/Hungary 3.9%, Ottoman Empire 5%, British Isles 2.2%, Australia 1.45%, Canada 1%, New Zealand 1.7%, Italy 3.5%, Russia No one is sure but estimates of military deaths vary between 3 and 6 million. 

British Armies have generally avoided massive casualty rates often because the Army has for most of its 1,200 year history been small and often proffesional. WWI was different and holds a big place in the British phsyche because for the first time and hopefully last time a civillian army fought a bloody and long war where big casualties where an unavoidable thing. The USA was understandably reluctant to become involved because of the racial memory of the US Civil War where casualty rates sometimes made WWI battles look small in comparison. There were still elderly people alive who had Seen The Elephant and didnt want to see boys march to the band again.

Criticise British Generals and Haig in particular all you like they made mistakes that make me shake my head and mutter "What were they trying to do, thats insane" but dont try to make out that they were particulary bloodthirsty without comparing them to other generals. 

Dont perpetuate the myths promulgated by historians with a political axe to grind.

Apologies the figures above are death rates not casualty rates I misread my source.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

Marcel said:


> After that day Haig just pressed on in the same stupid manner, disregarding all losses. I doubt if he even knew what was going on.
> 
> .



British Army tactics changed considerably even on the first day, Pinch and Hold tactics became the favoured tactic massively different to the initial waves on Day 1. All Arms tactics using forward observers, short sharp bombardments, Engineers to prepare the way, specialist shock troops and Cavalry who by this time were mounted light Infantry were all used. So different to the initial tactics its not even close. Day 1 was Napoleonic war tactics at the end of the battle it was 20th Century tactics.

The 1916 British Army was an amateur civillian army overwhelmingly made up of people who hadnt seen a rifle 6 months previously, the fact that by the end of the battle in November the amateur British Army was for the first time able to stand up to the Germans on a 1 to 1 basis is a testament to NCOs and Officers who learnt the new war the hard way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 4, 2013)

".... Don't perpetuate the myths promulgated by historians with a political axe to grind...."

Very good point. It was a _transformative_ war ... because of its timing in the continuum of European (and human) development. It was _NOT_ transformative simply because of high casualty rates ... although those had an impact, certainly ... and in Russia's case _were_ a huge contributor to the cause of the revolution .... but let us not forget that the_ same_ revolution almost happened in 1905 .... once again tripped by war in a climate of corruption and backwardness that was Czarist Russia.

We all know how RAF Bomber Command has had its reputation smeared not just by politicians but by those "with a political axe to grind".

Flavor-of-the-month political correctness is an abomination ....


----------



## parsifal (Nov 4, 2013)

I dont know where you got 1.45% for the Australians. Try 5.95% and you might be getting closer. There were 4.5 million Australians during the war. 267000 of them were casualties. 67000 were deaths. Just over 450000 enlisted. The immediate casualties were by far the heaviest casualty rates of any army at that time. 

Frankly, by that standard, the Australians were the worst army put into the field. but its a cockeyed standard to apply. The Australian Army is considered by most to be one of the pivotal armies put into the field. The difference is that in exchange for those 200000 + casualties, they are seen as achieving many things. the failure of the Somme was that it was an unimaginative, profligate, largely pointless and certainly callous loss of life. French or German commanders are not castigated for that sort of wastage, because it is in their military natures to not care about casualties. in the british armies, losses matter. And therein lies the difference. 

As a percentage of the overall forces, other campaigns can be broken down and paraded as being more expensive or costly, but you cannot do that because the frames of reference are just not comparable. Lets put that into perspective....in the whole of WWII, casualties in the Australian armed forces amounted to just over 30000, with 10000 of those dying in Japanese POW camps. We lost almost that many in a few days of fighting on the Somme, and in 1916, the Australian army's experience was pretty typical of the wider British experiences. It is the sheer number and the short space of time, and the utter non-achievement that makes the Somme so terrible and such an anathema to british military traditions. Haig and his supporters paraded that as some sort of grotesque badge of achievement. it was nothing of the sort.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 4, 2013)

Canada: 1914 population 7,879,000 

WWI: 67,000 dead. 173,000 wounded. WWII: 45,000 Dead. 54,000 wounded.

US Civil War:

“The traditional estimate has become iconic,” historian J. David Hacker said. “It’s been quoted for the last hundred years or more. If you go with that total for a minute—_620,000_—the number of men dying in the Civil War is more than in all other American wars from the American Revolution through the Korean War combined. And consider that the American *population in 1860 was about 31 million people*”


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

I got my figures wrong in post #193 I typed casualty rates but meant to type death rates. I have checked and edited the post and and cross checked the figures with wiki and they agree with small differences. A brief check and total casualty figures seem to be roughly 3.5 to 4.5 times greater than total deaths. Casualty figures combining death rates and injury rates cannot be compared with total accuracy as different armies calculated things differently, British figures include all injuries in theatre. I believe French figures only included combat injuries but cant find a definite answer.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

I cannot understand why the British Army is held to a different standard. Is a German or French life not considered as valuable as British or Australian life. All life is precious to someone and grief is just as hard whatever it says on your passport.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 4, 2013)

Whatever may have been Haig's ability to command Commonwealth forces in France; when the British Legion was formed in 1921 by, and for, soldiers of WW1, they turned to Haig to represent them. This was a choice of his own men. 

He may not have been the darling of later left wing academics and political writers but those who served under him clearly did respect him.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I cannot understand why the British Army is held to a different standard. Is a German or French life not considered as valuable as British or Australian life. All life is precious to someone and grief is just as hard whatever it says on your passport.


Don't know where you got that idea. We were just discussing the British, nobody said the French or Germans were any better. I even said somewhere that they all were equally bad.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

yulzari said:


> Whatever may have been Haig's ability to command Commonwealth forces in France; when the British Legion was formed in 1921 by, and for, soldiers of WW1, they turned to Haig to represent them. This was a choice of his own men.
> 
> He may not have been the darling of later left wing academics and political writers but those who served under him clearly did respect him.



It was Haig who insisted that the British Legion be for all ex servicemen with no consideration of rank or class. It should also be remembered that Haig was behind the original Poppy Appeal. 

He might have been an over promoted stuffy stuck up pompous moustache with an overinflated ego and a fossilised attitude to the French and modern technology but he did his best.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Don't know where you got that idea. We were just discussing the British, nobody said the French or Germans were any better. I even said somewhere that they all were equally bad.



I am asking why British high command is held to a different standard and why a non anglo saxon death seems to be of lesser consequence. 

I think I will bail out of this discussion now before I say something out of order.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I am asking why British high command is held to a different standard and why a non anglo saxon death seems to be of lesser consequence.
> 
> I think I will bail out of this discussion now before I say something out of order.



Again I ask you why you think this is the case in this discussion. I don't see anything the like being suggested here. But maybe I'm missing some subtile hints?


----------



## DonL (Nov 4, 2013)

> French or German commanders are not castigated for that sort of wastage, because it is in their military natures to not care about casualties.



To me both informations are new measured on the tradition.
Foch "won" Verdun because he did all what he can do to avoid wastages of his Soldiers.

For the Germans.
One of the most important rules of a Prussian/German General Staff officer was:
In a hopeless/difficult situation you have to retreat, to avoid needless casualties and to win back the initiative, under no circumstances you are allowed to let your troops batter to death. That's a long practised german General Staff rule.
General Erich von Falkenhayn has not a good reputation (more a bad one) at the german military history, because he was the originator and practised the bone crusher of Verdun, to fight an attrition soldiers life agaist the entente , which was elementary against german General Staff doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 4, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I am asking why British high command is held to a different standard and why a non anglo saxon death seems to be of lesser consequence.
> 
> Maybe because the French were fighting on their home soil and the Germans knew defeat would be a disaster. The British and Commonwealth soldiers (and later Americans) were fighting on foreign soil for a political end, there was no danger of the UK seriously being invaded once things descended into stalemate, harder to take the needless loss of life in those circumstance maybe? Although having worked in France and Germany the loss of life is felt equally painfully there. I saw a programme on Haig years ago which showed he he did have much more regard for the losses sustained than previously thought, improving coordination of attacks, use of tanks etc eventually paid off but a terrible price was paid in the meantime.
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 4, 2013)

Monash oversaw the most expensive campaign the Australian Army ever particiapted in, yet he he was, and is, rightly respected as a brilliant tactician and effective leader. he too was revered by his men and his country after the war. Success or failure should not be measured on the basis of caulaties alone. Sometimes casualties are unavoidable. During the 1941 invasion of the USSR, the Germans suffered as many casualties as they did during the Stalingrad campaign that followed. As purely military operations, however, Barbarossa is generally considered a brilliant campaign that just fell short of its objectives because of insufficient resources, whereas the Stalingrad battle was a profligate waste of German resources insisted upon by hitler. 

Haig does not stand up to that scrutiny. He was respected by his men, which is a good and noteworthy thing. He eventually led them to victory, and compared to some of the British warime leadership, was indeed a positively dovish leader. But all of this is smokescreen, designed for a specific purpose. to deflect the close eamination of his warime leadership, and his ability or otherwise to achieve results, regardless of cost. The cost of a campaign,especially in WWI can be forgiven, if there are tangible results achieved at the end of that campaign. At the end of the Some, the British and Commonwealth forces had lost at least 400000 casualties July to December, for amaximum advance of less than 8km. The ofensive was designed to crack the German defences, which it most clearly did not. It did very nearly crack the British Army however, and for this haigs performance is unforgivable.

I am no politician, and no left winger. i am an ex soldier, who has first hand eye witness and persoanal accounts of "haigs brilliance". I can tell you unequivocally, Australians do not think much of Haig ,

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> At the end of the Some, the British and Commonwealth forces had lost at least 400000 casualties July to December, for amaximum advance of less than 8km. The ofensive was designed to crack the German defences, which it most clearly did not. It did very nearly crack the British Army however, and for this haigs performance is unforgivable.
> 
> I am no politician, and no left winger. i am an ex soldier, who has first hand eye witness and persoanal accounts of "haigs brilliance". I can tell you unequivocally, Australians do not think much of Haig ,



I would add that his overconfidence in shelling was a major fault. If he had studied the events in the battle of Verdun he would have known that. It costed 20,000 young men their lives. 

But as it is clearly a sensitive subject for some of our anglo-saxon friends and I want to keep my neutrality I will stop here and I will try next to show some serious blunders in the other camps, for instance the Verdun battle. Just give me time I will have my dinner first
Bon appetit 

Oh btw, I am usually a left-wing voter and not an ex-soldier. Sorry for that...


----------



## redcoat (Nov 4, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I would add that his overconfidence in shelling was a major fault. If he had studied the events in the battle of Verdun he would have known that. It costed 20,000 young men their lives.


Trouble is, he needed to launch a major attack for political and military reasons and artillery was the only thing he had.


> Oh btw, I am usually a left-wing voter and not an ex-soldier. Sorry for that...


I'm left wing and not an ex-soldier, but I'm old enough to have known a number of British WW1 vets, and, as even I was surprised to discover, none of them held any grudge against Haig.
I'm not claiming Haig was a great general or even a very good one, but in relation to the senior generals in all the other major armies who fought in WW1 he was a lot better than modern popular opinion has him.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

Okay, although we've gotten terribly off-topic, I will write something about the great plan of one of those other 'geniuses', General Von Falkenhayn. 
In 1916 he thought that he could 'bleed the French to death' by attacking a position that the French would defend to all costs. He thought that would be Verdun. One of his ideas was that a great artillery barrage on a small front would make sure no Frenchman could resist when the attack came (where did we hear that before?). Sounds good, but he had overlooked a few minor details. First of all he planned the attack only on the right side of the river Maas, leaving his left flank open to the French artillery that were safely on the other side of the river. Another little thing he overlooked was that the terrain and weather near Verdun were anything but ideal, to say the least.
The result was terrible. The great shelling started after a few days delay because of bad weather (would not be the last time) and was bigger than anybody had ever seen. An for instance, an estimated 80,000 shells fel on the Bois des Caures, only 3 km long and 800m wide. But unfortunately for the Germans, the French defenders were still fighting and succeeded to drive the Germans back to were they started. So everything had to be done all over again the next day. This would become the pattern in the next 100 days or so. Repeated attacks, French bitterly defending and German and French bodies piling up under murderous machine gun fire. I will not describe the whole battle of Verdun, you can read that elsewhere. Conquering little villages costed thousands of lives on both side. 
The Germans were under murderous artillery fire from the other side of the river, and they finally realized they might have made a mistake there. So the started an offensive there as well. Mort Homme and Hill 304 changed sides many times. After 100 days the Germans had lost 174,000 men and it was clear the whole plan had backfired. Instead of the French, the Germans themselves were bleeding to death. But as with Haig, these ubelievable losses were not enough for Falkenhayn to stop. The fighting went on for another one and a half month in worsening weather. Everybody has probably seen the terrible mud, preventing any attack to be effective. Only after the failed attempt to conquer Fort Souville did the German high-command realize their plan had failed. That was too late for 600,000 German and French soldiers. The Germans had gained nothing.

I would place Von Flakenhayn in te same league as Haig. One note: here the French displayed a stubborn defence in terrible conditions. Quite remarkable and should silence everyone who say that French always retreat.

btw. sorry for the 'light' way that I wrote this. There are no words fit for the gruesome truth that is war...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 4, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Trouble is, he needed to launch a major attack for political and military reasons and artillery was the only thing he had.



But still he claimed it would be an easy walkover, while he should have known better.


redcoat said:


> I'm left wing and not an ex-soldier, but I'm old enough to have known a number of British WW1 vets, and, as even I was surprised to discover, none of them held any grudge against Haig.
> I'm not claiming Haig was a great general or even a very good one, but in relation to the senior generals in all the other major armies who fought in WW1 he was a lot better than modern popular opinion has him.


I don't know what he was like as a human being. Maybe he was better than popular opinion, but in my opinion his performances on the battlefield don't show that. And if I have to believe Parsifal, the Australians agree with me.
Must have been interesting to talk to these people. Here in the Netherlands we did not have that chance. My grandfather was a soldier at the time, but only patrolled the Belgian border near Antwerp.


----------



## silence (Nov 4, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> the number of men dying in the Civil War is more than in all other American wars from the American Revolution through the Korean War combined. And consider that the American *population in 1860 was about 31 million people*”



Far more American soldiers died outside of combat than during combat - roughly a 2:1 ratio - thanks mainly to disease. Combat casualties can be contributed to the use of outdated Napoleonic tactics as much as anything (IMO). I shudder to think of what the cost would have been with the general presence of machine guns.

General (and future president U.S. Grant) often gets vilified for victories based on sheer numbers and attrition, yet at the same time he was the C-in-C who won the war. Sounds to me that Haig had the same kind of issues.

Interestingly, Bobby Lee also had his share of butcher's bills, notably Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, which may have broken the Confederate forces. 

Apparently new scholarships suggests that American casualties in the Civil War may have been as much as 20% higher than originally thought.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 5, 2013)

If one wants to learn what it was like in the trenches I recommend these 2 books:

*At the Sharp End*: Canadians fighting the Great War, 1914-1916. Volume 1
"At the sharp end" features never-before-published photographs, letters, diaries, and maps recounting the devastation and triumphs of the Great War through the soldier's eyewitness accounts. This volume focuses on early battles of Second Ypres, St. Eloi, Mount Sorrel, and the Somme. The focus is on the Canadian Corps--the nation's 100,000 strong fighting formation that came to be regarded as elite troops with the British Expeditionary Force.

*Shock Troops*: Canadians Fighting the Great War, 1917-1918, Volume 2
"Taking up where 'At the sharp end' left off, 'Shock troops' follows Canadian soldiers through the final two years of World War One, 1917 and 1918. Using previously unpublished letters, diaries, memoirs, and official documents ... Cook captures the experience of battle through the eyes of the combatants. Cook chronicles the major battles fought by the Canadian Corps--Vimy, Hill 70, Passchendaele and the Hundred Days."


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2013)

silence said:


> Interestingly, Bobby Lee also had his share of butcher's bills, notably Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, which may have broken the Confederate forces.
> 
> Apparently new scholarships suggests that American casualties in the Civil War may have been as much as 20% higher than originally thought.


Way too many eff-ups at Gettysburg, including Pickett's charge. The entire engagement turned into a dog and pony show from the moment of first contact...Portions of Lees units engaging and not recalling against Lee's orders, Stuart's unit out of contact and the list goes on. The Confederates had a golden opportunity to neutralize the Union forces and it was an opportunity lost. This certainly shifted the fortunes for the South, costing them both in manpower and put them on the defensive for the duration.

However, saying Lee was a butcher is far from accurate. He was far more cautiuos with his men than Grant or Sherman.


----------



## silence (Nov 5, 2013)

I'm not saying Bobby Lee was the butcher that Grant or Sherman were when it comes to sheer casualty count but there were few battles Lee commanded where the North lost a higher percentage of men than the South, notably Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, and Deep Bottom. 

- At Antietam the Union suffered 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead - 25%. Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead - 31%.
- At Seven Days Lee had 95,000 men and lost 21,614; McClellan had 91,000 and lost 15,849.
- At Chancellorsville Lee had 57,000 men and lost 12,764; Hooker had 105,000 and lost 16,792.

Lee could win battles, but he couldn't win the war. If you think about it, its almost a reversal of Washington's situation in the Revolution.

What he really needed to win was a good supply of AK-47s and plenty of ammo.

Actually, I'm not terribly impressed with any general of the civil war, for any number of reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2013)

Not wanting to hijack the thread with Civil War discussion, but you can see a comparison between the Civil War and WWI actions. 

After Gettysburg, the South went on the defensive and dug themselves in effectively. The Union went to great lengths to dislodge the Confederate defenders and this created protracted engagements that resulted in great loss of life. More often losses were higher for the Union as the Confederates had constructed effective earthworks in anticipation of a Union assault.


----------



## Readie (Nov 5, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I'm old enough to have known a number of British WW1 vets, and, as even I was surprised to discover, none of them held any grudge against Haig.
> I'm not claiming Haig was a great general or even a very good one, but in relation to the senior generals in all the other major armies who fought in WW1 he was a lot better than modern popular opinion has him.



Well said Redcoat. Modern criticism of military leaders is easily done with the gift of hindsight.
Haig Harris have been demonized but, I always ask the question 'what would you have done in the same situation if you were General Haig or Bomber Harris?'
I usually don't get a sensible answer to that... because IMHO there isn't one.

The American civil war is an interesting topic but, its not a 'world war' involving so many nations.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2013)

Readie said:


> The American civil war is an interesting topic but, its not a 'world war' involving so many nations.


Very true, John but the lessons presented in the Civil War were lost to the Europeans. When the Confederates entrenched themselves, the Union's assaults became nothing more than a massive bloodletting and yet the Union commanders continued to send the soldiers foreward. Even with the use of railway mortars, pounding the defenders assisted the attackers to a certain degree, but when the smoke settled, the defenders would still appear to cut down the poor bastards assaulting the earthworks. It could have only gotten worse if the defenders had the infamous Maxim...

This was clearly a herald of things to come...


----------



## Readie (Nov 5, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Very true, John but the lessons presented in the Civil War were lost to the Europeans.



There were Dave. Like most lessons in history no one learnt any ****ing thing...


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2013)

Actually alot of parallels to the Civil War and WWI...one of the most tragic, is that in the Civil War, most believed it to be a quick contest (mostly a bloodless posture-fest) and they'd be home soon.

And who can forget the "Home by Christmas!" sentiment at the onset of WWI, accompanied by parades, cheers and a festival-like atmosphere as they marched to war?

Nope...seems like no one ever learns


----------



## Marcel (Nov 5, 2013)

Readie said:


> Well said Redcoat. Modern criticism of military leaders is easily done with the gift of hindsight.
> Haig Harris have been demonized but, I always ask the question 'what would you have done in the same situation if you were General Haig or Bomber Harris?'
> I usually don't get a sensible answer to that... because IMHO there isn't one.


Of course, but that's what history is: hindsight. We can judge based on what we know now. And the judgement is sometimes very kind and quite often isn't. I'm quit often careful with judging because of precisely the reason that you state here. Many mistakes are made because of the level of knowledge at the time. But some mistakes could have been avoided because the one in charge should have known better. In the case of Haig (sorry fastmongrl) the battle of Verdun had been raging for quite some time. That battle had clearly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of artillery on defense positions. The Germans had suffered enormously because of that. The attack plan on the first day of the Somme clearly shows that either Haig was totally ignorant of this, which would be outrageous, or he totally disregarded it, which means he was not willing to learn, which was not much better than the first option. 
What I would have done is irrelevant, I'm not a general and I'm not trained as one. In my work I am an annalist and 'm doing that here, too. Adding pieces of evidence together and drawing a conclusion. It is my conclusion and you may disagree, that's what the forum is there for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Nov 5, 2013)

Marcel said:


> The attack plan on the first day of the Somme clearly shows that either Haig was totally ignorant of this, which would be outrageous, or he totally disregarded it, which means he was not willing to learn...



Expecting men to charge machine guns armed with a swagger stick and a rifle is.... well, you decide.

Historical judgements are always made usually with the spin that that particular country wants to put on it.
I can only speak for my country and the education, influences, opinions of the older generation... an element of brain washing I suppose leads most Britons to have the views they have today and some will always have in the future.

That is our legacy Marcel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2013)

> Trouble is, he needed to launch a major attack for political and military reasons and artillery was the only thing he had.



So did Monash in July 1918, at Hamel. Comparison of the two centrepiece battles (ie the opening battles for the Somme versus the battles at Hamel) for the two men illustrates in spades their respective capabilities as military comanders and the depth of their priorites. Some may argue that Monash's opening battle at hamel as a Corps Commander benefitted from 3 years of bitterly learnt experiences, whereas Haig was 'making it up as he went along". True, except that Monash had entered the war as a brigade commander, rapidly was promoted to Divisional Commander and thenCorps and finally the commander of the whole AIF. From the very beginning he displayed remarkable concern for the welfare of his men and was fanatical about attention to detail. His battles were consistently less costly that those of any comparable commander. Not so for Haig. Monash was critical of Haigs performance from almost the moment he first met him, in early 1916. 



> I'm left wing and not an ex-soldier, but I'm old enough to have known a number of British WW1 vets, and, as even I was surprised to discover, none of them held any grudge against Haig


.


The Australian Army was critical of him from even before Somme. Monash's diary lays that out in Spades. Our imperial protocols prevented us from open revolt against the yoke of incompetent (mostly british) military leadership, but for most of the war, we spent trying to quietly eject British establishment from leading our troops into battle. For the most part, British ground commanders were poor and certainly uncaring of casualties. after all, they were just "expendable lower class colonials". to me that is an unfair assessment, but it is also a fair representation of the AIFs view of how the british establishmenty viewed them, and its competency as an officer class. 



> I'm not claiming Haig was a great general or even a very good one, but in relation to the senior generals in all the other major armies who fought in WW1 he was a lot better than modern popular opinion has him


.


Im not basing my criticism of him on the basis of any modern assessment. i base it on the known observation of the senior Australian leadership of the time. It is worth noting that haig was aware of Monash's distrust and criticism of him, and he worked very hard to deny his rise within the Australian Army, and its command. The Australian Prime minister, billy hughes was present at Hamel, primarily at the behest of Bean, Murdocj and the tacit support of haig to try and have monash removed. hughes' observation of monash's exceelenet conduct of the battle made even the Australain politicians realize that not all was well with the higher British leadership of the time. after hamel., there were no more doubts about Monash, no more little intriques and machiavellian plots by his enemies to have him removed.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2013)

Once war was declared in 1914 Monash was appointed commander of the AIF's 4th Infantry Brigade based in Egypt at the age of 49 as part of the ANZAC Australian-New Zealand forces. Having served in the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1915, where he distinguished himself by his imaginative and effective leadership of his brigade in some of the heaviest fighting of the campaign, Monash transferred to the Western Front in June 1916, receiving a promotion to Major General and taking command of 3rd Division. He had observed the profligate loss of British lives and at that point had determned it was due to the poor standards of training and the near total lack of imagination in the tactics being used by the BEF at that point. He refused to commit the 3rd Division until further training of the formation had taken place and some infiltration and raiding principals introduced into the division's operational procedures. as a result, the 3rd Division entered the line late, but was considered by many to be the strongest and best trained (and most effective) formations in the BEF (of which the AIF was a part) and that time. 3 Divs operational record attests to that assessment

Through the next two years Monash led his command through numerous actions, including the Battles of Messines, 3rd Ypres and Polygon Wood, using pioneering raiding techniques that, whilst thoruoughly frowned upon by the British high command, nonetheless impressed with their efficiency and tight planning. I think i know where Monash derived these ideas. During the Gallipoli campaign, 7LHR (my grandfathers regiment) was attached to the 4th Brigade, or fought alongside it at places like Lone Pine. i remember my grandfather telling stories about how they developed night raiding techniques, using a combination of shotguns, gurkhas, covering fire [at that time Infantry advances were done with empty magazines]....charges were undertaken using "cold steel' only, per the british high commands ideas on "gentlemans tactics"...something completely rejected by the Australians. We went into battle with full magazines and no illusions about how trench warfare should be fought. monash would have seen all that and realized how far superior it was to the asinine tactics being insisted upon by the British. 

Monash made his real mark in 1918, having been earlier appointed corps commander of the Australian forces in May, succeeding General Birdwood. Until the armistice in November Monash led his forces through fierce fighting, firstly in the Allied defence against the great German push of spring 1918.

Monash planned and executed the attack at the Battle of Hamel Hill which began on 4 July, leading to the capture of the town by combined Australian and U.S. forces (during which he demonstrated to good effect his new strategy of 'peaceful penetration'). Other similarly successful operations followed until late October, at Chignes, Mont St. Quentin, Peronne and Hargicourt and in breaking the Hindenburg Line, most significantly at Amiens. Monash used tanks to good effect, reversing the tactical order that they entered battle, and taking steps to try and improve their relaiability (by pushing forward some detachments of the maintenance crews). He used his artillery with particular cleverness, and even included elements of air support in his planned asaults. This was all designed to reduce casualties in the PBI, and along with Curries slightly different ideas, served as a model for all operations. 

Monash differed from Sir Douglas Haig's assessment of the role of infantry, who was firmly wedded to the use of infantry as an attritional weapon, and believing there was really no way around the casualty rates. There probably wasnt (since casualty rates even during the period of allied advances remained high), but the difference was that Monash's tactics worked, Haigs did not. ,Monash believed rather in planning infantry assaults to most effectively co-ordinate with the use of heavy artillery, air support, tanks, etc, thereby allowing the greater chance of success - essentially anything to prevent what he deemed an unnecessary loss of life.

A brilliant tactician, Monash included in his bag of tricks the idea of bombarding German lines with gas attacks for several days preceding an offensive, conditioning German defenders to associate smoke with gas, only to use smoke cylinders on the actual day of the advance, which served not only to confuse the Germans but also ensured that they were disadvantaged in having to wear bulky gas masks as the Allied forces advanced, lessening visibility (in addition to interfering with enemy communications).

Following his success at Hamel and Amiens Monash was knighted by King George V on the field on 12 August 1918.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 6, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Through the next two years Monash led his command through numerous actions, including the Battles of Messines, 3rd Ypres and Polygon Wood, using pioneering raiding techniques that, whilst thoruoughly frowned upon by the British high command, nonetheless impressed with their efficiency and tight planning. I think i know where Monash derived these ideas. During the Gallipoli campaign, 7LHR (my grandfathers regiment) was attached to the 4th Brigade, or fought alongside it at places like Lone Pine. i remember my grandfather telling stories about how they developed night raiding techniques, using a combination of shotguns, gurkhas, covering fire [at that time Infantry advances were done with empty magazines]....charges were undertaken using "cold steel' only, per the british high commands ideas on "gentlemans tactics"...something completely rejected by the Australians. We went into battle with full magazines and no illusions about how trench warfare should be fought. monash would have seen all that and realized how far superior it was to the asinine tactics being insisted upon by the British.
> 
> Monash made his real mark in 1918, having been earlier appointed corps commander of the Australian forces in May, succeeding General Birdwood. Until the armistice in November Monash led his forces through fierce fighting, firstly in the Allied defence against the great German push of spring 1918.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but your article seems to somewhat underplay the fact that both the British and Canadians also played a major part in the attacks during the hundred days and while Monash was a brillant general who was much admired by Haig, he didn't invent all the all arms tactics used by the British and Commonwealth forces during this period.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 6, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Sorry, but your article seems to somewhat underplay the fact that both the British and Canadians also played a major part in the attacks during the hundred days and while Monash was a brillant general who was much admired by Haig, he didn't invent all the all arms tactics used by the British and Commonwealth forces during this period.



I would suspect that some of these tactics were _lifted_ from the Canadians.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 6, 2013)

Nice, all those nationalistic sentiments


----------



## Readie (Nov 6, 2013)

Our thoughts here turn to Remembrance Sunday with poppies everywhere.
National pride and gratitude is in full display.
The 2 minute silence is well observed in Plymouth with, people of all ages and professions, buses, taxi's, cars and lorries stopping. 
You could have heard a pin drop.

Maybe its a hard time to be thoroughly objective about who was right or wrong.
Just saying....


----------



## Marcel (Nov 6, 2013)

Yes, John I can imagine that. For me it's much easier to be objective with ww1 than with ww2. We were just not involved in the first one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Sorry, but your article seems to somewhat underplay the fact that both the British and Canadians also played a major part in the attacks during the hundred days and while Monash was a brillant general who was much admired by Haig, he didn't invent all the all arms tactics used by the British and Commonwealth forces during this period.



Im not denyingor trying to underplay in any way that the victory achieved was a combined effort, or that the British and the Canadians along with American, French, New Zealanders Belgian and others all contributed to that result. I concentrated on Australian achievements, because they are what I know best. Australian forces made their share of blunders, and were limited by a number of factors, that should not be forgotten or put aside.

Neither am I denigrating the whole of the british Army. British soldiers were brave, capable soldiers, universally acknowledged as stubborn fighters. They were well served by support services, like dental and medical, which should be credited to Haig (he was not all bad, just not able to adapt). There were many officers within the british Army that should be credited with initiave, bravery, success, all those things. I am an unabashed supporter of the british and their value system. I am not a fan of the "British establishment" because it very nearly destroyed Britiain, the british Army and the British Empire. 

This was about a comparison between Haig, being claimed as a competent, some even intimating above average, miliatary leader, and someone universally acknowleged as the true article of competency.....one of the military men on the allied side who developed what we might call the "professioonal" or modern military method. Before men like monash and Currie, the army was used as a blunt instrument, an attritional weapon, that very nearly destroyed itself carrying out the British establishments concepts of war. those concepts were epitomised by Haig. Haig wasnt bad, or poor, within the confines of his own social grouping. but that social grouping proved almost incapable of adaptation or modern theoretical development. Not so the men who were outside of that "club". That did include many Englishmen, but it also included men from the Dominions, who were consistently and deliberately locked out of the domain of higher command for a very long time. And in the end, because he saw Monash as a threat to his own position, he turned on him, listening and giving tacit approval to the witchunt concocted by murdoch and bean. Bean and Murdoch were clearly motivated by racist belief, being hostile to Monash's Jewish/Prussian heritage. I do not know where haig stood in that regard..


----------



## redcoat (Nov 6, 2013)

parsifal said:


> And in the end, because he saw Monash as a threat to his own position, he turned on him, listening and giving tacit approval to the witchunt concocted by murdoch and bean. Bean and Murdoch were clearly motivated by racist belief, being hostile to Monash's Jewish/Prussian heritage. I do not know where haig stood in that regard..


There is as far as I'm aware no evidence that Haig or any of the senior British high command took any part in the witch hunt against Monash.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 6, 2013)

Readie said:


> Our thoughts here turn to Remembrance Sunday with poppies everywhere.
> National pride and gratitude is in full display.
> The 2 minute silence is well observed in Plymouth with, people of all ages and professions, buses, taxi's, cars and lorries stopping.
> You could have heard a pin drop.
> ...



Time to post this video from 2007,


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEblEHxkuNs_

4-year-old Belgian boy--Randall-Benjamin, wearing a replica uniform, made by his Mum, as worn by the Canadian Scottish regiment during WW2


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2013)

redcoat said:


> There is as far as I'm aware no evidence that Haig or any of the senior British high command took any part in the witch hunt against Monash.



He(Haig) certainly was not a direct conspirator, but as CinC he had considerable powers over the press, which he chose not to exercise. this implies that he was happy for the newspapers to pedal their material.

The following is a partial quote from the source given. 

In 1917, while visiting the Western Front as an unofficial war correspondent, Murdoch conducted negotiations with Field Marshal Douglas Haig in support of the Australian government's policy of the Australian Imperial Force (A.I.F.) divisions to be brought together into a united Australian Corps Murdoch pushed for the appointment of Major General Brudenell White as the new corps' head while denigrating Major General John Monash, the latter was given command when the combined corps was formed in 1918. Along with official war correspondent Charles Bean, Murdoch continued to lobby Haig for Monash's demotion by appealing firstly to Haig and then directly to Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes. Haig was not swayed, but he did allow and approve press releases from Murdoch that were scurrilous and completely baseless. Given that Haig was meticulous in his knowledge of his senior commanders, he had to have known Murdoch was making false statements. And yet, he nevertheless acquiesced and allowed the stories to run. "Death by neglect" is one way of putting it. By allowing these press releases to run, Haig enabled Murdoch to mislead billy hughes into the belief that the A.I.F.'s senior officers were strongly opposed to Monash. Murdochs (and Beans) intrigues were exposed by Hughes, when Hughes visited the front just before the Battle of Hamel intending to replace Monash. He first consulted the same senior officers and discovered that their support for their commander was strongly positive and that Monash's powers of planning and execution were excellent. The subsequent outcome of the Hamel assault closed the question of Monash's suitability, but later in the same year Murdoch again attempted to convince Hughes that Monash should not control the repatriation of Australian troops

Australian Dictionary of Biography Murdoch, Sir Keith Arthur (1885 - 1952) published by Australian National University, ISSN 1833-7538


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 6, 2013)

parsifal said:


> He(Haig) certainly was not a direct conspirator, but as CinC he had considerable powers over the press, which he chose not to exercise. this implies that he was happy for the newspapers to pedal their material.
> 
> The following is a partial quote from the source given.
> 
> ...


I don't know but that I agree with Redcoat on this one, Parsifal. And what do you call the innuendos in this article, if not a "witch hunt?" This wasn't Haig's business to get involved in the campaign for the leader of this bunch. That decision was up to the Prime Minister.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 7, 2013)

well, i win some, i lose some....thats the way it is i suppose. Maybe we should move on...


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2013)

Just a point to make here, but through and even in the post Victorian age, high ranking Generals (and Admirals) wielded considerable power in political and social circles.
If they were made to look bad (whether fact or assumption), they had the ability to "pull a few strings" and create difficulties for the source of their displeasure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 7, 2013)

quite a number of British generals are worth mentioning because of their skill. hereare a few i think worth talking about:

Rawlinson is a controversial general to consider. He was the commander of 4th Army (of which the AIF was a part), and led the BEFs most successful component from 1917. He is often remembered for his failures at the Somme, the shadow of this one battle hangs over his career – The Somme. Rawlinson was the general most responsible for planning the battle of the Somme, and it was his army that bore the brunt of the fighting.
Yet despite the failures of the Somme, Rawlinson was a visionary. It was he who planned and conducted the first night battle by a modern army, and it was Rawlinson who pioneered the idea of Combined Arms Operations. His victory at Amiens – called “the Black Day of the German Army” by Erich Luddendorf – was the first battle in history where the efforts of infantry was closely supported by mass artillery using modern targeting and fire support plan techniques, mass cavalry charges, mass armored advance and aerial support. He showed the future of battlefield tactics and integrated operations. 

Allenby is widely regarded as one of the best commanders of the First World War and is certainly remembered as one of the most successful. He had experience combat in the Boer War, with his Cavalry Column having been engaged in constant combat for two years. During that war he had learned contempt for the established higher command and, on the Western Front, it was this contempt that saw him replaced by Byng after feuding with Haig despite having distinguished himself in combat.
He was reassigned to the Middle-East and there he would prove his worth. He quickly gained the respect of the troops of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force by moving his HQ to a position closer to the front, visiting the troops regularly in the frontlines, reorganizing the EEF into an effective Corps system and imposing discipline and professionalism on the whole command. He gave financial support to T.E. Lawrence’s efforts to unite the Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Empire. He showed capability in both strategy and tactics and, much like Rawlinson, he became a pioneer of modern warfare with his victory at Megiddo being considered the precursor of Blitzkrieg.

Plumer looked the part of a typical First World War British General, with his receding chin and white moustache, yet he was anything but. Plumer was a man who operated in prudent reality: he did not expect his army to break through the enemy lines and charge to Berlin, nor did he expect his men to be superhuman. In his detailed plans he planned for only modest goals – keeping in mind the weather and terrain involved and the morale of his men – then trained his men thoroughly for the task he had set them. “Daddy” Plumer was arguably the finest commander on the Western Front and his victory at Messines was one of the most complete in the entire war

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 7, 2013)

Sounds like Monty took a few pages from Plumer. (Not being a Monty fan, I'll just stop there before I start anything.)

I need to learn so much more about the Great War, but the cost in lives vs. ground gains is so depressing for the most part and the naval war outside of Dogger Bank and Jutland is rather boring. Maybe I'll just stick with the air war.... (but no zeps! Spads, Sopwiths, and Fokkers! Jastas and Escadrilles! Oh, and the Albatrosses: love that shark-like look. Teutonic peoples seem to have a knack for making planes look like killing machines.)


----------



## Readie (Nov 7, 2013)

'Yes, John I can imagine that. For me it's much easier to be objective with ww1 than with ww2. We were just not involved in the first one'.

I admire your staightforward honesty Marcel.

I hope people have learnt a few things from this thread.
WW1 is a very emotive war and feelings run deep as you have probably gathered....

You should be a moderator mate.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 7, 2013)

parsifal said:


> He gave financial support to T.E. Lawrence’s efforts to unite the Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Empire.


You know Arab oil figured into that. They just didn't figure it was the right time to tell the Arabs about it.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 7, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> You know Arab oil figured into that. They just didn't figure it was the right time to tell the Arabs about it.


 
The first oil well to strike oil in Saudi Arabia was in 1938.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 7, 2013)

Readie said:


> 'Yes, John I can imagine that. For me it's much easier to be objective with ww1 than with ww2. We were just not involved in the first one'.
> 
> I admire your staightforward honesty Marcel.
> 
> ...


thanks John, but I think we have a good bunch already.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 7, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The first oil well to strike oil in Saudi Arabia was in 1938.


First befriend. Then politically-stabilize. Then drill. It's called, "advance-planning."


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 7, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> First befriend. Then politically-stabilize. Then drill. It's called, "advance-planning."



20 years ?? Get real.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 7, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> 20 years ?? Get real.


I think they knew. What do you think?


----------



## redcoat (Nov 7, 2013)

silence said:


> Sounds like Monty took a few pages from Plumer. (Not being a Monty fan, I'll just stop there before I start anything.)


Actually Monty was a Monash fan, describing him as the greatest general of WW1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 7, 2013)

Oil was first found in the region in NW Persia (Iran) in 1908.
In 1923 a concession was signed by the local shiek for oil exploration, but investors were lacking.
When oil was struck in Bahrain in 1933, investors surfaced but drilling wasn't successful in Saudi Arabia till 1938.

So what did the powers that be know about oil in the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia in the WW1 era ? Nothing .


----------



## redcoat (Nov 7, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> First befriend. Then politically-stabilize. Then drill. It's called, "advance-planning."



After WW1 the British and French left the area, leaving it under the rule of the local tribes. It wasn't until 1932 that the modern state of Saudi-Arabia came into being when the area was united by Ibn Saud.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 7, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Just a point to make here, but through and even in the post Victorian age, high ranking Generals (and Admirals) wielded considerable power in political and social circles.
> If they were made to look bad (whether fact or assumption), they had the ability to "pull a few strings" and create difficulties for the source of their displeasure.


True. But in this case it was the Australian press which was acting against Monash, not the British press. I suspect that Haig would have been able to have 'a few words' with the British press if he felt the need, but with the Australian press I'm far less certain he would have any influence.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Oil was first found in the region in NW Persia (Iran) in 1908.
> In 1923 a concession was signed by the local shiek for oil exploration, but investors were lacking.
> When oil was struck in Bahrain in 1933, investors surfaced but drilling wasn't successful in Saudi Arabia till 1938.
> 
> So what did the powers that be know about oil in the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia in the WW1 era ? Nothing .


This is the Industrial Age. Economics is at the center of this Great War. Oil is economics. They're pumping it out of Persia and going all over the world looking for it. Arabia is no Persia. They drill and build and refine and distribute from there, what will the nomadic tribes say? But that doesn't mean they didn't scout it. And if the oil companies knew it was there, so did the politicians.

Wait until there's a half-way stable regime to protect their big economic investment. In the meantime, befriend them. When they get it going, ring them up.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 8, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> This is the Industrial Age. Economics is at the center of this Great War. Oil is economics. They're pumping it out of Persia and going all over the world looking for it. Arabia is no Persia. They drill and build and refine and distribute from there, what will the nomadic tribes say? But that doesn't mean they didn't scout it. And if the oil companies knew it was there, so did the politicians.
> 
> Wait until there's a half-way stable regime to protect their big economic investment. In the meantime, befriend them. When they get it going, ring them up.


Then why was it a US company which exploited the oil, not British or French.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 8, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> This is the Industrial Age. Economics is at the center of this Great War. Oil is economics. They're pumping it out of Persia and going all over the world looking for it. Arabia is no Persia. They drill and build and refine and distribute from there, what will the nomadic tribes say? But that doesn't mean they didn't scout it. And if the oil companies knew it was there, so did the politicians.
> 
> Wait until there's a half-way stable regime to protect their big economic investment. In the meantime, befriend them. When they get it going, ring them up.



It took them a long, long time to exploit it if they knew of it's existence in 1914-18. 
Sorry, your theory just doesn't hold water, or oil.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Then why was it a US company which exploited the oil, not British or French.


Short answer. Because we struck the deal and you and the French struck out. 



tyrodtom said:


> It took them a long, long time to exploit it if they knew of it's existence in 1914-18.
> Sorry, your theory just doesn't hold water, or oil.


Funny you should put it in those terms as it wasn't until the regimes formed that it became apparent to them water wasn't necessarily their most precious natural resource.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 8, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Short answer. Because we struck the deal and you and the French struck out.
> 
> 
> Funny you should put it in those terms as it wasn't until the regimes formed that it became apparent to them water wasn't necessarily their most precious natural resource.



A British mining engineer gets the exploration concession in 1923, it takes till oil is found in Bahrain before he can get investors interested in drilling in Saudi Arabia, he finally gets investors from the US and drills for years before they got a producing well.

Yet they knew all this was possible in 1914-18 ??

Sorry, it just doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2013)

There is a seed of truth in VBFs claim but like all these sorts of theories, you take a little bit of truth and mix it with a whole lot of baloney to generate one big enormous myth. 

From wiki....

"On January 15, 1902, ‘Abd-al’-Aziz ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Al Sa’ud took Riyadh from the Rashid tribe. In 1913, his forces captured the province of al-Hasa, from the Ottoman Turks. In 1922 he completed his conquest of the Nejd, and in 1925 he conquered the Hijaz. In 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was proclaimed with ‘Abd-al’-Aziz as king. Without stability in the region, the search for oil would have been difficult, as evidenced by early oil exploration in neighbouring countries such as Yemen and Oman.]

Prior to 1938, there were three main factors that triggered the search for oil in Arabia:
The discovery of oil by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company at Masjid-i-Sulaiman in the mountains of north-western Persia in 1908; *but the consensus of geological opinion at the time was that there was no oil on the Arabian peninsula*, although there were rumours of an oil seepage at Qatif on the eastern seaboard of al-Hasa, the eastern province of Arabia.

The demand for oil during World War I. Throughout the war, it became obvious that oil was going to be a crucial resource in warfare for the foreseeable future.[1] Examples that proved this were “General Galleini’s commandeering of the Paris taxi fleet to ferry soldiers to the front. This happened when the city seemed about to fall”. In addition to this, Germany’s shortage of oil supplies hindered their ability to produce aircraft, automobiles, and engines. The allies took advantage of this by producing thousands of vehicles to aid their war effort.

The onset of the Great Depression. Prior to the depression, a major source of income for the ruler of Hijaz was the taxes paid by pilgrims on their way to the holy cities. After the depression hit, the number of pilgrimages per year fell from 100,000 to below 40,000. This hurt their economy greatly and they needed to find alternate sources of income. This caused King ‘Abd-al’-Aziz to get serious about the search for oil.

In 1922, King Abdulaziz met a New Zealand mining engineer named Major Frank Holmes. During World War I, Holmes had been to Gallipoli and then Ethiopia, where he first heard rumours of the oil seeps of the Persian Gulf Region.[1] He was convinced that much oil would be found throughout the region. After the war, Holmes helped to set up Eastern and General Syndicate Ltd in order, among other things, to seek oil concessions in the region. [my note: he appears to have sought US backers for purely comercial reasons and no other....ther certainly were no "Imperial" overtones]

In 1923, the king signed a concession with Holmes allowing him to search for oil in eastern Saudi Arabia. Eastern and General Syndicate brought in a Swiss geologist to evaluate the land but he claimed that searching for oil in Arabia would be “a pure gamble”. This discouraged the major banks and oil companies from investing in Arabian oil ventures.

In 1925, Holmes signed a concession with the sheikh of Bahrain, allowing him to search for oil there. He then proceeded to the United States to find an oil company that might be interested in taking on the concession. He found help from Gulf Oil. In 1927, Gulf Oil took control of the concessions that Holmes made years ago. But Gulf Oil was a partner in the Iraq Petroleum Company, which was jointly owned by Royal Dutch/Shell, Anglo-Persian, the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, and "the Near East Development Company, representing the interests of the American companies. The partners had signed up to the “Red Line Agreement” which meant that Gulf Oil was precluded from taking up the Bahrain concession without the consent of the other partners; and they declined. Despite a promising survey in Bahrain, Gulf Oil was forced to transfer its interest to another company, Standard Oil of California(SOCAL), which was not a bound by the Red Line Agreement.

Meanwhile King Abdulaziz had dispatched American mining engineer Karl Twitchell to examine eastern Arabia. Twitchell found encouraging signs of oil, asphalt seeps in the vicinity of Qatif, but advised the king to await the outcome of the Bahrain No.1 well before inviting bids for a concession for al-Hasa. To the American engineers working in Bahrain, standing on the Jebel Dukhan and gazing across a twenty-mile (32 km) stretch of the Persian Gulf at the Arabian Peninsula in the clear light of early morning, the outline of the low Dhahran hills in the distance were an obvious oil prospect.

On 31 May 1932, the SOCAL subsidiary, the Bahrain Petroleum Company (BAPCO) struck oil on Bahrain. The discovery brought fresh impetus to the search for oil on the Arabian peninsula.

Negotiations for an oil concession for al-Hasa province opened at Jeddah in March, 1933. Twitchell attended with lawyer Lloyd Hamilton on behalf of SOCAL. The Iraq Petroleum Company represented by Stephen Longrigg competed in the bidding but SOCAL was granted the concession on 23 May 1933. Under the agreement, SOCAL was given “exploration rights to some 930,000 square kilometers of land for 60 years”. Soon after the agreement, geologists arrived in al-Hasa and the search for oil was underway

SOCAL set up a subsidiary company, the California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC) to develop the oil concession. SOCAL also joined forces with the Texas Oil Company when together they formed CALTEX in 1936 to take advantage of the latter’s formidable marketing network in Africa and Asia.

When CASOC geologists surveyed the concession area, they identified a promising site and named it Dammam No. 1, after a nearby village. Over the next three years, the drillers were unsuccessful in making a commercial strike, but chief geologist Max Steineke persevered. He urged the team to drill deeper, even when Dammam No. 7 was plagued by cave-ins, stuck drill bits and other problems, before the drillers finally struck oil on 3 March 1938. This discovery would turn out to be first of many, eventually revealing the largest source of crude oil in the world.For the king, oil revenues became a crucial source of wealth since he no longer had to rely on receipts from pilgrimages to Mecca. This discovery would alter Middle Eastern political relations forever.

In 1943, the name of the company in control in Saudi Arabia was changed to Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO). In addition, numerous changes were made to the original concession after the striking of oil. In 1939, the first modification gave the Arabian American Oil Company a greater area to search for oil and extended the concession until 1999, increasing the original deal by six years. In return, ARAMCO agreed to provide the Saudi Arabian government with large amounts of free kerosene and gasoline, and to pay higher payments than originally stipulated.

Beginning in 1950, the Saudi Arabian government began a pattern of trying to increase government shares of revenue from oil production. In 1950, a “fifty-fifty profit-sharing agreement was signed, whereby a tax was levied by the government. This tax considerably increased government revenues”. The government continued this trend well into the ‘80s. By 1982, ARAMCO’s concession area was reduced to 220,000 square kilometers, down from the original 930,000 square kilometers. By 1988, ARAMCO was officially bought out by Saudi Arabia and became known as “Saudi Aramco”."


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2013)

In regards to the "Imperial Overtones" note, that would be correct. The U.S. had no deep interest at the time in any oil production expansion, because prior to WWII, the U.S. had more oil reserves than the rest of the entire world combined.

The American involvement was based more on investment than consumption, plus there was some ugly monopoly litigations directed at Standard Oil, so oil investors were looking around for more secure source to put thier money.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 9, 2013)

Why are we discussing oil in the middle east in a "how ww1 started" thread?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 9, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Why are we discussing oil in the middle east in a "how ww1 started" thread?



Took a wrong turn along the path. Happens occasionally.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 9, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Why are we discussing oil in the middle east in a "how ww1 started" thread?


I'll plead guilty to that. I was wondering how this critical economic resource figured into the British rounding up the Arabs to their cause.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 9, 2013)

I think the British were " rounding up the Arabs to their cause" mainly because they wanted the Suez canal approaches secure.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 9, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I think the British were "rounding up the Arabs to their cause" mainly because they wanted the Suez canal approaches secure.


I agree with that statement.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2013)

The British (imho, mostly) and the French desire to control the Middle East was probably one factor in getting the Ottoman Empire onto the German side (Russia was the other factor, of course). The British and French governments thought that the Ottoman Empire's territories would be easy pickings (to be fair, the Ottoman Empire was moribund), and, at the time, Everybody Knew™ that only Europeans (and not all of them) could govern themselves.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 9, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The British (imho, mostly) and the French desire to control the Middle East was probably one factor in getting the Ottoman Empire onto the German side (Russia was the other factor, of course). The British and French governments thought that the Ottoman Empire's territories would be easy pickings (to be fair, the Ottoman Empire was moribund), and, at the time, Everybody Knew™ that only Europeans (and not all of them) could govern themselves.


It was Russia that Turkey feared, not Britain and France.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2013)

redcoat said:


> It was Russia that Turkey feared, not Britain and France.



Certainly, Russia had had its sights set on, among other places, Istanbul, for both the its long-running desire for ice-free ports and free navigation into, among other places, the Mediterranean and for religious reasons, to expel the Muslims from Constantinople. Even before WW1, the various powers had started to divvy up the Ottoman Empire, most obviously the Italians (who probably allied with the Entente as much in expectation of more concessions in North Africa as anything else).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The British (imho, mostly) and the French desire to control the Middle East was probably one factor in getting the Ottoman Empire onto the German side (Russia was the other factor, of course). The British and French governments thought that the Ottoman Empire's territories would be easy pickings (to be fair, the Ottoman Empire was moribund), and, at the time, Everybody Knew™ that only Europeans (and not all of them) could govern themselves.



Oh come on, you know that British Imperial intentions were always for the betterment of the colonials. Not for exploitation...


----------



## Readie (Nov 9, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh come on, you know that British Imperial intentions were always for the betterment of the colonials. Not for exploitation...




Well...

The belief in the benevolent British Empire lasted until its end. In general, Britons thought of their empire as a positive force which contributes not only to the economic and cultural development of their own country but also to that of uncivilised nations.

The history of the nineteenth-century practices of institutional benevolence are elegantly discussed by Patrick Brantlinger in his essay “A Short History of (Imperial) Benevolence.” The author draws the reader’s attention to some rhetorical strategies of British imperial humanitarian benevolence in action. The author convincingly demonstrates that benevolence has always been strongly linked to the concepts of political economy and utilitarian philosophy.

Benevolence was a major factor in ending slavery in part because it found an ally in the new science of economics. But — Brantlinger continues — there was no such fit between benevolence and economics concerning either how Aboriginals were treated or how the Irish Famine was dealt with. On the contrary, in those situations, the principles of political economy overruled humanitarian intentions. 

We are cynical bastards, always were and always will be.
Which explains why we are welcomed around the world with warmth...

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> There is a seed of truth in VBFs claim but like all these sorts of theories, you take a little bit of truth and mix it with a whole lot of baloney to generate one big enormous myth.


I don't think it was necessary to put it that way. Besides that, your Wiki citation (omitted) didn't answer a thing.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 10, 2013)

Ali Bin Hussain, Grand Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz and his sons were just as cynical as the allied leaders and the sons were more Turkish aristocrats than bedouin. They knew very well of the promises made about Palestine and Syria and remained in contact with the Turks until the end of the war.

This is not arab knocking but pointing out that no one was a wide eyed innocent in the politics of the middle east.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 10, 2013)

Today is remembrance day....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 10, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Today is remembrance day....


----------



## Readie (Nov 10, 2013)

Yes, Plymouth held its breath for 2 minutes as all ages remembered they fallen ancestors.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2013)

There were some interesting programmes covering the Somme at the weekend, which boiled down to what most have already stated.

The attack completely underestimated the strength of the German trenches especially the underground safe areas.
They overestimated the effect of the barrage which was poorly diected except in the sounth where the French gunners were more experienced.
They took no account of how very easy it was/is to set up machine guns to give cross fire across open ground...a matter of minutes.
The time of the attack was given away buy tunnelers who were having their phones tapped electromagnetically.
The best results results on day one were where the British had installed some massive flame throwers, no documents so it may be coincidence, but what a weapon, it could throw diesel/kerosine up to 70 metres, everything was in a tunnel with only the nozzle above ground.

Casualties at the end were stated at 1,000,000 for both sides and pretty much no advance. May they rest in peace


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Actually Monty was a Monash fan, describing him as the greatest general of WW1.



I love little tidbits like this.


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Today is remembrance day....



And today is our Veteran's Day.


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

Readie said:


> Well...
> 
> The belief in the benevolent British Empire lasted until its end. In general, Britons thought of their empire as a positive force which contributes not only to the economic and cultural development of their own country but also to that of uncivilised nations.



A lot of us Americans feel similarly about the US today. While I love my country, I can also admit that we screw up a lot, but if you step back and look at things dispassionately screwing up has to be expected and accepted. Even the British Empire on occasion made mistakes!!!!!!!! (I know, hard to believe.)

What frosts me is my fellow countrymen et al who believe that "benevolent" equates to "perfect" and "most powerful" allows "carte blanche."

BRING BACK EMPEROR NORTON I!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2013)

silence said:


> Even the British Empire on occasion made mistakes!!!!!!!! (I know, hard to believe.)



Old Egyptian saying "It is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, sooner or later they will sell their friends to buy their enemies". I am a Brit by the way.
Trouble is people remember the bad long after the good is forgotten. Remember Monty Pythons "what have the Romans ever done for us" sketch, sums it up in a nutshell.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2013)

Trying to understand the british psyche is dangerous. They can be a stubborn, irrational lot, sometimes not self serving either....like the Polish gurantees, or the refusal to surrender even when the odds are stacked and it seems hopeless. 

Nothing worse than the British in control, yet no master better than the british. figure that one out if you can....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Nov 11, 2013)

silence said:


> Even the British Empire on occasion made mistakes!!!!!!!! (I know, hard to believe.)





pbehn said:


> Old Egyptian saying "It is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, sooner or later they will sell their friends to buy their enemies". .





parsifal said:


> Trying to understand the british psyche is dangerous. They can be a stubborn, irrational lot, sometimes not self serving either....like the Polish gurantees, or the refusal to surrender even when the odds are stacked and it seems hopeless.
> 
> Nothing worse than the British in control, yet no master better than the british.



Ah... Perfidious Albion. We are not the nicest of people collectively however, as individuals the British character strengths are self-restraint, hard work, resilience, optimism, courage, generosity, modesty, empathy, kindness and good manners. Old-fashioned values and easy to sneer at I suppose. 
The art of queueing escapes most other cultures but, its what we do....
Michael is quite right, we are a paradox.


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

Readie said:


> Ah... Perfidious Albion. We are not the nicest of people collectively however, as individuals the British character strengths are self-restraint, hard work, resilience, optimism, courage, generosity, modesty, empathy, kindness and good manners. Old-fashioned values and easy to sneer at I suppose.
> The art of queueing escapes most other cultures but, its what we do....
> Michael is quite right, we are a paradox.



Heh - most of my "ancestral blood" is German, Welsh, and Scots-Irish. Guess that means (with apologies) I'm a goose-stepping frothing-at-the-mouth blue-painted barbarian who can't decide whether to conquer and occupy or just pillage and move on. No wonder I'm usually confused.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2013)

silence said:


> Heh - most of my "ancestral blood" is German, Welsh, and Scots-Irish. Guess that means (with apologies) I'm a goose-stepping frothing-at-the-mouth blue-painted barbarian who can't decide whether to conquer and occupy or just pillage and move on. No wonder I'm usually confused.


I would have never made it in the Customer Service realm with my ancestry:
German/Prussian, Highlander Scott (two clans) and Oglala Sioux Indian.

When they call me a mean bastard, I take it as a compliment

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 12, 2013)

I have a russian wife, a German stepfather, an Irish grandmother, a Cornish Granfather (both on Mums side) and a scottish heritage on my natural fathers side. 

I dont think i have any hope.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Nov 12, 2013)

Being british/english/french/alsatian/bulgarian/spanish/danish I am something of a post nationalist and tend to think of myself as European so I have changed my flag as a token step.

To me it is a symbol that the madness of this thread, which took my grandfather and father to war for 12 years, is over and we see how similar we are, not how different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 12, 2013)

Readie said:


> Ah... Perfidious Albion. We are not the nicest of people collectively however, as individuals the British character strengths are self-restraint, hard work, resilience, optimism, courage, generosity, modesty, empathy, kindness and good manners. Old-fashioned values and easy to sneer at I suppose.
> The art of queueing escapes most other cultures but, its what we do....
> Michael is quite right, we are a paradox.




...and an almost fanatical devotion to the........... I'll come in again!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2013)

Njaco said:


> ...and an almost fanatical devotion to the........... I'll come in again!



Premier league football?


----------



## silence (Nov 12, 2013)

Njaco said:


> ...and an almost fanatical devotion to the........... I'll come in again!



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Now I need to watch that skit again!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm a bit confused.

Surely you are Americans / Australians first with your individual family history.
Or, do you think of yourselves as German - Americans , Anglo - Americans etc?

I say this after listening to a radio debate about 'being English'. The points were (briefly) (1) Are you British first, so an Indian could say he was an British Asian and so on. (2) Is birth in England enough, or do you need generations of English parents plus birth to claim to be English? It all got very complicated and some callers were really quite rude and unpleasant.

I thought.. oh bollocks, I know who I am so the other PC ****ers can **** off


----------



## Marcel (Nov 12, 2013)

You're just all dutch. You even needed a dutch king and you guys lost at sea from us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 12, 2013)

Readie said:


> I'm a bit confused.
> 
> Surely you are Americans / Australians first with your individual family history.
> Or, do you think of yourselves as German - Americans , Anglo - Americans etc?
> ...



I personally think of myself as American and if asked my heritage is mixed. I'm a 5th generation Californian and my sister qualifies for the D.A.R. (Daughters of the American Revolution - you may be familiar with it !!!!), so my status as an American dates back to the birth of the nation. The last familial immigrant I know of was my mother's grandfather.

And I really think most Americans who are American by birth think of themselves as Americans first when you get right down to it, regardless of their heritage. My feeling is that any American citizen regardless of where they were born is an American: I truly believe in the statement on the Statue of Liberty.

As far as Aussies go, I have no idea. I do know however, that some kiwis (well, one that I know) seem to think of AU as still being populated with criminals. What's up with that? Seems kinda harsh.


----------



## silence (Nov 12, 2013)

Readie said:


> I'm a bit confused.
> 
> Surely you are Americans / Australians first with your individual family history.
> Or, do you think of yourselves as German - Americans , Anglo - Americans etc?
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a "Brit" basically a catch-all for any citizen of the Empire, while an "Englishman/Scot/etc." someone of that specific heritage? (See all the confusion having an actual Empire can cause?!?!?!)


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2013)

I usually refer to myself as a Californian as well as an American, being born in Southern California (back when California was a good place to be).

It's always good to know one's roots, but a person's place of birth can be just as important. My Scottish ancestors were a mix of Saxons and native Scotts (Mac Beans) or native Scotts (Royal Stuart), my German ancestry was mostly Saxon and the Prussian side is aparently German and Teuton (would like to know more details there, perhaps in time) and the Sioux is pretty self-evident. 

I'm proud of my ancestry, but I am an American.


----------



## silence (Nov 12, 2013)

Marcel said:


> You're just all dutch. You even needed a dutch king and you guys *lost at sea from us.*



huh? I seem to remember the RN having a rather noticeable presence world-wide from about the late 1500s on.

And I assume you mean William of Orange?

(Pardon the questions, but I like clarity - probably since I'm usually somewhat foggy)


----------



## silence (Nov 12, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I usually refer to myself as a Californian as well as an American, being born in Southern California (back when California was a good place to be).
> 
> It's always good to know one's roots, but a person's place of birth can be just as important. My Scottish ancestors were a mix of Saxons and native Scotts (Mac Beans) or native Scotts (Royal Stuart), my German ancestry was mostly Saxon and the Prussian side is aparently German and Teuton (would like to know more details there, perhaps in time) and the Sioux is pretty self-evident.
> 
> I'm proud of my ancestry, but I am an American.



Well said, sir. (Sorry about the SoCal part!; my family's always been NoCal and I still love CA, up here at least.)

I have German blood on both sides, and on mom's side its been traced back to the 1200s so far to an area about 60mi. North of Berlin. My Scots clan is Douglas.

I guess with all our mixed heritages American have a natural curiosity for genealogy.


----------



## Readie (Nov 12, 2013)

silence said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a "Brit" basically a catch-all for any citizen of the Empire, while an "Englishman/Scot/etc." someone of that specific heritage? (See all the confusion having an actual Empire can cause?!?!?!)



The term 'British citizen' is a catch all as you say. But, within our union no one is 'British', we are English, Welsh, Scots, Cornish, or Northern Irish. Its gets complicated as with the term 'English' you have the northern and southern people. Culturally poles apart and we don't understand each other... The Scots are a very proud people and the 'highlanders' and 'islanders' even more so.The Welsh are, er unique.... We are a complicated nation


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 12, 2013)

Marcel said:


> You're just all dutch. You even needed a dutch king and you guys lost at sea from us.


Well it's sure good to see you boys got this thread back on track after it took that digression into oil.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 12, 2013)

The problem in this sub discussion is that it is looking at the British- rest of the world relationship through 2013 eyes. things are different, and perceptions are differnt to what they were in 1914. And it varied according to individuals and nations.

For Australians, the relationship changed fundamentally in 1942, wit the fall of Singapore and Britains weakness exposed. britain was shown as no longer having the strength to protect us from our many big enemies. We at once became more independant in our thinking, and at the same time transferred our allegiances mostly to the US.

In 1914 things were different. Britain was still a superpower, our benefactor, our chief export market. We still believed that British Seapower would save us from invasion. There was no hesitation for us. I think it was PM Andrew Fisher who said "we shall fight to defend Brityain to our last shilling and last ounce of blood. we very nearly did.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 12, 2013)

Readie said:


> The term 'British citizen' is a catch all as you say. But, within our union no one is 'British',


Within our Union everyone is British, that's why we all have the same passport which states we are British citizens. We may wish to identify ourself as belonging to one of the four nations which makes up the Union, but internationally we all belong to the single state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom


----------



## Readie (Nov 13, 2013)

redcoat said:


> Within our Union everyone is British, that's why we all have the same passport which states we are British citizens. We may wish to identify ourself as belonging to one of the four nations which makes up the Union, but internationally we all belong to the single state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
> 
> United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I am quite well aware of that Redcoat. British citizens /subjects and this is our nationality.
My point to our overseas friends is that within Britain you have other strong senses of identity /heritage.

When I am abroad should someone ask me where I am from I always say 'I'm English'. 
Apart from USA Immigration who unfailingly point out that 'you're not English you are British...get to back of the queue' no one else has a problem with this.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 13, 2013)

silence said:


> huh? I seem to remember the RN having a rather noticeable presence world-wide from about the late 1500s on.
> 
> And I assume you mean William of Orange?
> 
> (Pardon the questions, but I like clarity - probably since I'm usually somewhat foggy)


Michiel de Ruyter sailed to Chatham and kicked the hell out of the RN, giving the British a bloody nose (unfortunately he was beaten later in another battle, but you can't have it all).
And indeed one of the William of Oranges was king of England.

But let's get the thread back on the rails...


----------



## Readie (Nov 13, 2013)

Ok Marcel... where were we?


----------



## Marcel (Nov 13, 2013)

I think we were discussing the origins of ww1. 

One remark I think I read a while back fron DonL was that he thought the reclamation of the German Empire in 1871 was not one of the causes of ww1, or something to that effect. I cannot find it, but it is in this thread somewhere. 

My answer to that is that the the fact that Wilhelm I was crowned in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, of all places. This is of course an insult in the eyes of every proud Frenchman, which doesn't help to lessen the tention that was already there. Although not a direct cause, it certainly helped on the road to WWI.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 13, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I think we were discussing the origins of ww1.
> 
> One remark I think I read a while back fron DonL was that he thought the reclamation of the German Empire in 1871 was not one of the causes of ww1, or something to that effect. I cannot find it, but it is in this thread somewhere.
> 
> My answer to that is that the the fact that Wilhelm I was crowned in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, of all places. This is of course an insult in the eyes of every proud Frenchman, which doesn't help to lessen the tention that was already there. Although not a direct cause, it certainly helped on the road to WWI.


And isn't it funny, Marcel, how, just a century before, Versailles, which was built so the French aristocracy didn't have to live among the Parisians, embodied everything the average Frenchman thought was wrong with France?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

You could say the same about the white house I guess, or Kirribilli house, or any other "presidential palace"


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 13, 2013)

parsifal said:


> You could say the same about the white house I guess, or Kirribilli house, or any other "presidential palace"


Yes, I guess that's right.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

ill give you this...Versaille is both one of the most grand, and yet, for that very reason, and given the situation of the french people when it was built, one of the most offensive buildings in history

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 13, 2013)

I'll take anything I can get.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 13, 2013)

Take the time to read this brief review of Margaret MacMillan - one of the most objective writer/historians of the period, IMHO. Her perspective is balanced and accurate ... 

Fulford: Margaret MacMillan reveals the motivations behind The War That Ended Peace | National Post


----------



## redcoat (Nov 14, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Take the time to read this brief review of Margaret MacMillan - one of the most objective writer/historians of the period, IMHO. Her perspective is balanced and accurate ...
> 
> Fulford: Margaret MacMillan reveals the motivations behind The War That Ended Peace | National Post


Unsure why she mentioned Lord Salisbury as he died in 1903 and his foreign policy towards Europe was one of "splendid" isolation.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 14, 2013)

"....Lord Salisbury, prime minister of England for 13 years, freely expressed a superior man’s aversions to various races. He considered foreigners more selfish and less reliable than the British. "

Context for British "dumbness" in stumbling over the precipice, perhaps, redcoat. Perhaps if he had been PM in 1914 Britain might have "passed" on saving Belgium. He would have been the smartest man in EUROPE if that had been the case.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

so, ratting out on your friends and letting bullies have their way is smart thinking. Sorry, things must be different in canada . Australians dont think that way, we give our word, however disingenuously and we keep it. Giving those sorts of promises should not be given lightly, but when given, need to be honoured. 

Whatever the cost, sometimes nations have to stand up and be counted. sure, British asistance to Belgium might be a "contrived reason" for fighting the germans, but it was a well stated, long standing undertaking given by Britain since 1840.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 19, 2013)

"... ratting out on your friends and letting bullies have their way is smart thinking"

Your words, not mine, parsifal. Please read this:

... the ministers in H. H. Asquith’s cabinet — including Winston Churchill — had repeatedly expressed the view that Britain would _not _necessarily regard a German transit through Belgium as a casus belli ...


Christopher Clark: The Great Belgian blunder | National Post

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 20, 2013)

I apologise Micahel, my language was not exactly diplomatic. 

I'll have a read of your article and edit this post accordingly.


Edit

Read it. It makes some very valid points, but i doubt the Brits would view any violation of Belgian neutrality sympathetically. Basic British policy was to contain Germany, because if Germany got to dominate Europe, they would presenbt an uncontrollanle threat to Britsh power and security. From Britains perspective they wanted to maintain the delicvate balance of power, and they thought the best way to do that was to back the second most powerful military power in Europe, against the most powerful.

That the whole thing unravalled and resulted in a bloodbath was inevitable, but that wasnt apparent at the time. And has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of defensing a neutral against german aggression. Britain had decided to protect the neutrality of Belgium for reasons of self interest. Germany decided to try their luck in that regard, which result in war between Britain and Germany. If Germany had left Belgium alone, it would have been much harder for Britiain to get into the war, and not look or be the aggressor


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 20, 2013)

"...a bloodbath was inevitable, but that wasnt apparent at the time .."

I don't know, parsifal, I think the US Civil War made that kind of bloodbath pretty clear to military observers and the reading public. The Prussians sure observed closely and used lessons in the F-P war.

At any rate, the Great War is getting close and devoted attention as its 100th birthday arrives ..... something we both should appreciate .... 

Chairs,

MM


----------

