# Origins of The First World War and ramifications



## renrich (Oct 30, 2010)

The thread about the Rape of Nanking has threatened to evolve into a discussion of how WW1 and WW2 got started so here are some of the events which took place during the period just before WW1 broke out. During the late 1800s and early 1900s there were many inventions with great war making potential. Some of them were the breech loading rifle, breech loading fast firing artillery. aeroplanes, dreadnought battleships and battle cruisers and perhaps the most terrible of all, the machine gun. All of the major countries in the world adopted these innovative inventions for possible use.

One of the events which really gave impetus to the arms race was the launching of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 which immediately made every battleship in the world obsolete. All the major countries in the world immediately attempted to join the dreadnought club including even some of the Latin American countries. Some of the European monarchies were related and perhaps that fact gave rise to the rivalries that resulted in the arms races. Wilhelm of Germany wanted to have a navy equal to Great Britains' navy and GB was determined to have a navy equal at least to any two possible adversaries.

At any rate all the major players in Europe, including Germany, Russia, Great Britain, France and Austria Hungary were commited to having powerful armies and navies. All that was needed for war was a fuse to be lit. Tha fuse was lit in June, 1914, when a Serbian nationalist assasinated Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria Hungary'

A-H declared war on Serbia and attacked. Since Germany had an alliance with A-H, she was drawn into that war. Russia had an alliance with Serbia so she joined on the side of Serbia. France had an alliance with Russia so she was drawn in. Great Britain had no alliance with any of the combatants but she had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium. Germany knew that it would take a while for Russian to mobilise her armies so rather than have a two front war, she decided to knock out France before handling Russia. Her plan called for invading France through Belgium, which she did and GB entered the war because of her commitment to Belgium. The "Guns of August" sounded. It almost seems an accidental war but it would be a terrible long drawn out affair with huge ramifications.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 30, 2010)

In the days before television was dumbed down I remember seeing a programme by the historian AJP Taylor who spoke for one hour on this subject. One of the main points he made was that all major powers had a plan to mobilize their forces to the front except Germany. European countries used mobilization as posturing and bargaining tools. For Germany their plan was based on the troops arriving at a railway head and then straight on to attack, to avoid a war on two fronts they had to knock out France quickly. There was no plan or capacity to hold troops on the border so as soon as Germany "mobilized" the war started. 

I dont know how true it all was but it was a fascinating case he made for it, basically world war one started because of German railways.


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2010)

To me, there are several highly interesting points about WW1. One is that the war did not seem to stem from any nation's desire to acquire more territory. It also did not appear to be an ideological war. No communism against capitalism, for instance. Yet, the war turned out to be the most costly in history up until that time.

It was costly in more than lives and treasure also. Without WW1, the Russian Revolution may not have happened. There may not have been the USSR with many millions of people slaughtered or enslaved. Perhaps no Korean War and Viet Nam war or no Cold War. Without WW1, perhaps no rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler. WW2 might not have been a world war but only a war to contain Japanese imperialism. Without WW1, perhaps the British Empire would have endured through the twentieth century.


----------



## Glider (Nov 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> Without WW1, the Russian Revolution may not have happened. There may not have been the USSR with many millions of people slaughtered or enslaved. Perhaps no Korean War and Viet Nam war or no Cold War. Without WW1, perhaps no rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler. WW2 might not have been a world war but only a war to contain Japanese imperialism. Without WW1, perhaps the British Empire would have endured through the twentieth century.



While this is certainly true I believe that something would have set off a conflict of major proportions, probably resources. There were a lot of small countries in Europe and a few large ones. The Franco Prussian War was a recent memory and something would have set it off. If nothing else Germany had designs on making an empire of its own mainly in Africa and when the importance of oil was recognised then anything could happen. Portugal is a good example of a country with a pretty large empire but without the economic clout to hold it if Germany became greedy, Spain was also vulnerble and Russia was almost certain to implode. So in the late 1920's there would have been a delayed World War 1 somewhere over something.


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 1, 2010)

There was an element of ideology in the initial causes of WW1, although from a 'Western' viewpoint it can be slightly obscure. Austria-Hungary's move to crush Serbia was essentially geopolitical, and Germany's decision to support them was also political, although there was also an element of solidarity with the Reich's Germanic cousins. The Russian move to support Serbia was heavily influenced by pan-Slavic sentiments - so racial ideology was a factor in the initial events which led to the activation of the two treaty blocs. 

Nationalism also supported the British declaration of war, although the German invasion of Belgium was the immediate _cassus belli_. The German challenge to British naval supremacy in the years preceding the war certainly ignited the 'jingoistic' tendencies of the British public, as well as being construed as a threat to the security of the Empire, which demanded a strong navy to secure communications with the overseas possessions. 

I'm not sure WW1 can be seen as accidental. The 'Balance of Power' which had existed since Waterloo was still an important factor a century later - there was definitely a feeling, expressed in British nationalism and the French desire for _revanche_ that Germany had grown too big and too powerful and would upset the existing order if her expansionist tendencies were not curbed. A clash between France and Germany was essentially inevitable - the French desire to retake Alsace and Lorraine make it likely that the war would have started sooner or later, and drawn in both alliances. As it happened, the Balkan situation provided an excuse for the Entente to achieve several aims - the reduction of German power, the re-taking of the lost territories, and a re-imposition of the European order, accompanied by the removal of a severe threat to the security of the British Empire. I tend to think that WW1 was inevitable - there were so many tensions among the European powers that one was bound to light the touchpaper, and the alliance systems guaranteed that whatever the initial cause, the war would take essentially the same form that it did.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2010)

".... Without WW1, the Russian Revolution may not have happened. "

The 1905 Russian Revolution - precursor to 1917 - was caused by the Russo-Japan War and the staggering incompetence and general shakiness of the House of Romanov and their peers.

More than most - WW1 was a war about Empires - rising (German), collapsing (Ottoman-Turk), British, French, Russian - and economics - mercantile economics (as opposed to free market. free trade economics).

Germany wanted Empire - and all the trappings that enable and compliment Empire such as deep water navy.

As such - a clash of Empires - WW1 had been in the 'making' for almost 3 decades.

As for dreadnoughts - symbol of the arms race - that weapon never got tested - much the same way as we escaped the Cold War without the use of the A-bomb.

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 1, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> As for dreadnoughts - symbol of the arms race - that weapon never got tested - much the same way as we escaped the Cold War without the use of the A-bomb.
> 
> MM



I would question that assertion - the dreadnought was well tested at Jutland, particularly in it's battlecruiser guise, which was found wanting. In a wider scale, dreadnought battlecruisers participate in a number of surface engagements. So the design was hardly 'untested'.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2010)

The German Fleet remained "contained" as a Fleet after Jutland - the Dreadnought fleet, designed to "project German power" at sea, worldwide, (like the Royal Navy did for Britain) never got into the open ocean, never got past Jutland. Never functioned as a "fleet". Do you have an alternative understanding of events ..? 

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 1, 2010)

I wasn't seeking to say that the German fleet ever projected power globally. Although the heavy units did sortie after Jutland, you rightly point out that they never made it into open water, and eventually made the largest contribution in the Baltic.

What I was contesting was the assertion that dreadnoughts were never tested - they were tested in combat, and the result was unsurprising - in terms of battleships, neither side was capable of inflicting a decisive defeat on the other in direct combat. This was not true, however, of the BCs, which were derivatives of the dreadnought BBs, and saw relatively extensive combat, which proved the British designs to be brilliant in their designed role as cruiser-killers, but hopelessly inadequate for the line of battle. Conversely, the German BCs took a horrendous pounding and still stayed afloat. 

Coming back slightly toward the point of the thread, the German navy would never have been capable of truly global power projection, even without the RN to contend with. German ships were small (as they had to clear the Jade sandbars), and carried smaller guns than most contemporaries, while also having poor habitability - the crews spent a lot of time ashore due to the cramped conditions aboard ship. These handicaps would have been thrown into sharp relief had major surface forces been required to sail to Africa or the Pacific and project German power there. However, the British simply saw a threat to be contained, which did much to push them towards war.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 1, 2010)

A great book that deals with just this subject is "The Guns of August" about the first few months before and after the begining of WWI. A very good read.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2010)

Good call, Capt. Vick. Great book.

@Bombtaxi: ".... the German navy would never have been capable of truly global power projection, even without the RN to contend with. German ships were small (as they had to clear the Jade sandbars), and carried smaller guns than most contemporaries, while also having poor habitability - the crews spent a lot of time ashore due to the cramped conditions aboard ship. These handicaps would have been thrown into sharp relief had major surface forces been required to sail to Africa or the Pacific and project German power there".

Which sort of determined that Germany was NEVER going to be an overseas power (unlike for example, Japan. Briefly) - which in tern explains why - for Germany - empire was EAST, by land, if there was to be an Empre.

MM


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2010)

It is a misconception that dreadnoughts were never tested. The German Fleet (High Seas Fleet) came out and there was a substantial confrontation between the High Seas Fleet and the Grand Fleet, (British). The fighting qualities of both combatants designs were severely tested at Jutland and, if anything, the German designs were proven better. The German ships were just as large as the British ships on average, their habitibility was not as good as that of the British, their ships were slightly slower and guns slightly smaller but they were better protected and almost unsinkable by gunfire. The German gunnery was somehat better than the British and their gun's projectiles were more effective.

The dreadnought design was followed by all navies all the way into WW2. The German High Seas Fleet served a purpose even though it was bottled up mostly in harbor. It's very existence forced the British to keep the Grand Fleet ready at all times and relatively close by in order to counter the High Seas Fleet and the RN needed to make sure that they had a numerical superioity. The loss of the High Seas Fleet would not lose the war for Germany. The loss of the Grand Fleet would finish Great Britain and lose the war for the Allies. Jellicoe was truly the only man who could lose the war in one day.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2010)

@renrich: I welcome this thread and thank you for starting it, but your initial premise needs a hard look:

"... During the late 1800s and early 1900s there were many inventions with great war making potential. Some of them were the breech loading rifle, breech loading fast firing artillery. aeroplanes, dreadnought battleships and battle cruisers and perhaps the most terrible of all, the machine gun".

Consider - electricity. The telegraph. The railroad. Interchangeable-parts. Industrial-age BOOTS. 

I read a book on the Russo-Japan War ("Human Bullets") - a great little book by a Japanese soldier. In it he describes how the Russians had *electric spotlights* and fences (I believe) at Port Arthur. I thought - 1904 - amazing.

Weapons are just tools - and while tools may facilitate the bloody work of war - they don't cause or make war. If necessary war can be fought with rocks from the field. Wars are fought over for "territory", "tribe", economic "opportunity" and the like.

WW1 was a kind-of 20th Century Punic War(s) that sealed the fate of Empires in a Colonial Age and ended that Colonial Age by bankrupting the major stakeholders (France and England) - even though they won.

MM


----------



## The Basket (Nov 1, 2010)

Tinned food and barbed wire.

Plus the U Boat.

Telephones...Ariel reconnaissance...

Tanks and road vehicles.

Modern warfare. 

How does tinned food make war? Coz you can fight all year even in the harsh winter without having to decamp to winter quarters.


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2010)

Those of you adding to my opening are most welcome. I started this so that those more knowledgeable than I would hopefully contribute. Tanks were only developed after the war began though and I believe that the machine gun was responsible for the changes in infantry tactics which took place during the war although trench warfare was prevelant in the War of Northern Aggression in America.

An added point about dreadnoughts. The German dreadnought were beamier than the British counterparts because the British dry docks were more narrow. That, along with more subdivisions made the German ships more damage resistant.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2010)

It's a *great *topic - if you don't understand WW1 it is impossible to understand WW2 in any complete way.

"... It's very existence forced the British to keep the Grand Fleet ready at all times and relatively close by "  Absolutely true - in the end it was a counter that the British always had to content with. In that sense it was effective.

MM


----------



## renrich (Nov 2, 2010)

An example of comparable dreadnoughts, German and British:
Kaiser-1911, 24700 tons, beam-95 feet, 10- 12 inch-50 cal. guns, designed speed-20 knots
Thunderer-1911, 22500 tons, beam-85 feet, 10-13.5 inch guns, designed speed-21 knots
The British devoted more tonnage to guns and engines(HP), the Germans, less HP and smaller guns and more armor.
In reality the speed differences were negligible and the German guns fired a projectile at higher MVs with a better BC so that down range performance was as good as the British shells especially considering the somewhat poor performance of the British AP rounds.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2010)

renrich said:


> An example of comparable dreadnoughts, German and British:
> Kaiser-1911, 24700 tons, beam-95 feet, 10- 12 inch-50 cal. guns, designed speed-20 knots
> Thunderer-1911, 22500 tons, beam-85 feet, 10-13.5 inch guns, designed speed-21 knots
> The British devoted more tonnage to guns and engines(HP), the Germans, less HP and smaller guns and more armor.
> In reality the speed differences were negligible and the German guns fired a projectile at higher MVs with a better BC so that down range performance was as good as the British shells especially considering the somewhat poor performance of the British AP rounds.



Have to agree with all this (Until the Queen Elizabeth arrived).


----------



## parsifal (Nov 4, 2010)

My opinions are somewhat disjointed on the causes of WWI. However, in there is that it was primarily a european war, about dominance of Europe.

as far as Britains position was concerned, she had little interest in events on the continent, except that it was vital to British interests that no single power gain overwhelming dominance. For that reason Britain has always backed the second most powerful continental power. In 1800, that was Russia, Austria and Prussia, whilst the most powerful country was the enemy, and at that time happened to be France.

by 1914, the most powerful country on the continent was Germany, so fot the British it became necessary to relaign herself with the French. Given that german actions threatened to upset the balance of power and establish a dominance in Europe, it was inevitable that the British and the germans would clash. The circumstances of how that actually occurred are in my opnion window dressing. 

The strategic issue for the British was the control of the oceans, and as an extension of that, control of trade with and by the Europeans. Whilst Britain controlled the Euopean oceans she could dictate who and how much could be traded.If the germans had achieved European dominance it would have upset that situation for the Brits.

Therein lies the root cause s of the war....


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 5, 2010)

All of that is true parsifal, but command of the oceans wasn't just about trade - it was also about maintaining the structural integrity of the Empire. It would have been impossible to supply and garrison the Empire, and distribute it's material benefits, without total control of the seas. That was the crux of the dreadnought arms race. A German navy that could break into the Atlantic to menace links with Canada and the Carribean or work with Austrian-Hungary to close the Med (and therefore the Suez Canal) could not be allowed to exist as long as the Empire did...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2010)

ywah agreed. as far as the continental powers were concerned, it was simply a case of each power protecting its own sphere of influence, with the events in Serbia threatening the delicate balance of power.

The experiences of [email protected], where there was no forum for international discussions, to air grievances in my opinion led directly to the formation of the League. The League as a concept might have worked, except that the hoorors of the war also led to the radicalisatin of European politics for a number of countries....and that is one of the reasons for the road to the 2nd war.,


----------



## renrich (Nov 18, 2010)

Some historians have postulated that the entry of the US, into the war in 1917 was a mixed blessing, to say the least. Before that entry, both sides had sustained terrible casualties and there were ongoing efforts by both sides to end the war. Without the US entry, which promised to tilt the scales, what might have been the outcome?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 18, 2010)

Dunno Ren, but i kinda agree with Pershing. He did not want to accept anything less than unconditional surrender. Makes one wonder if this might have avoided the need to go bac and do it all again twenty years later......


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 18, 2010)

Without US intervention, it is quite possible that the Michael Offensive could have succeeded, ending the war in a German victory. The collapse of the Eastern Front gave Germany a huge manpower reserve with which to smash the Allied armies which had spent themselves during 1917 in ultimately futile attacks. A German victory, of course, opens up a whole vista of possibilities, not least a solid, German-speaking bloc in Central and parts of Eastern Europe, and Hindenburg as a kind of latter-day Bismarck, becoming an even bigger political power than he did historically and ensuring that Prussian militarism remained the guiding principle of German rule. 

I think you would also get the Cold War starting 30 years early. While Germany would still be incontestably the greatest land power in the world, the RN still existed at war's end, and I do not believe the British would accept any peace terms dismantling it, unless a Silesian regiment was camped outside Buckingham Palace. So the British would either fight to annihilation, or much more likely a settlement would be reached leaving the Second Reich master of Continental Europe, with France and Belgium snuffed out as independent countries, and Britain retaining it's Empire and most of it's sea power. At least here an uneasy balance might be kept for a few decades. But then, the British may well be the ones to develop a strong right-wing in politics and seek their revenge on Germany sometime in the 1940s...


----------



## timshatz (Nov 18, 2010)

I think confusing the way it was fought with why it was fought is happening. While the magazine rifle, machine gun and quick firing artillery piece had an enormous amount to do with how it was fought, they really weren't causes. More actors in the play.

But I agree with the Dreadnaught being a major reason why Germany/England went at it. The Kaiser really screwed up when he started building a navy that really couldn't compete with Britian's Fleet. Tirpitz's idea of a fleet half the size of Royal Navy's really did nothing more than put two countries that were relatively friendly too each other on a collision course. But the Kaiser was a bit of a nut anyway. 

Think someone got it part of the way right when they mentioned that once mobilization started, the war was inevitable. Germany knew it couldn't take both France and Russia at the same time, so it had to go on the offensive. While Russia could partially mobilize and march around in the vastness of Russia for a long time, neither France nor Germany had that option. It was a "go/no go" situation with Mobilization meaning "Go". Russia didn't quite get that distinction. 

But those points are how the war started, not so much why. To do that, you need a lot more space than what we have here. Tuchman's "Guns of August" is a good book. But I don't think it is the best. It is better than "Europe's Last Summer" (which is a favorite of mine, deals with the same time period as "Guns of August" but I think Tuchman is better). 

Amazon.com: Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? (9780375725753): David Fromkin: Books

The best book I've ever read on the origins of WW1 is one called "Dreadnaught". Something of a nod to the British/German rivalry that sprung up around their respective Navies. The writer is a guy named Robert Massie and is one of those unsung heroes of this history. He is very, very good. 

Amazon.com: Dreadnought (9780345375568): Robert K. Massie: Books

If you have only one book to read about the origins of WW1, this is the one. Covers right up to the start of the war. The second volume, "Castles of Steel" covers the time after the start and is equally as good. 

Amazon.com: Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea (9780345408785): Robert K. Massie: Books


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 19, 2010)

I've got the Massie volumes and they are brilliant, Castles of Steel in particular is very well-thumbed. Guns of August is on my 'to-buy' list, but I will get to my end before I get to the end of that list


----------



## timshatz (Nov 19, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> I've got the Massie volumes and they are brilliant, Castles of Steel in particular is very well-thumbed. Guns of August is on my 'to-buy' list, but I will get to my end before I get to the end of that list



Guns of August on the Bucket List! That's a guy who wants to know what goes where and why. Most people want to go Nepal and find the secret of life or some such crap. You've got it refined to reading the "Guns of August". Smart man. Cheaper option and you might find out something useful. 

Something I do when it comes to books I want to read is get them used from Amazon. Usually can get them for less than $5. Have a ton of books like that. For a while in the Summer, I had 2-3 coming in a week. 

Cheap and effective. 

Love Massie's work. Definitely underated as a Historian.


----------



## davebender (Dec 5, 2010)

> A-H declared war on Serbia and attacked. Since Germany had an alliance with A-H, she was drawn into that war. Russia had an alliance with Serbia so she joined on the side of Serbia. France had an alliance with Russia so she was drawn in. Great Britain had no alliance with any of the combatants but she had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.


That's the History Channel version of events but it greatly distorts what actually happened.

11 June 1903.
Serbian Army Captain Dimitrijevic leads a military coup which kills Serbian King Alexander. He installs a new Serbian Government that is more or less under his control. 

9 May 1911.
Colonel Dimitrijevic forms the "Black Hand" terrorist organization. Funding, training and weapons are provided by Serbia.

From 1911 onward the Black Hand conducted a series of terrorist attacks against Austria-Hungary including an attempt to kill KuK Franz Joseph during 1911.

28 June 1914.
The Black Hand succeed in killing Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne.

8 July 1914.
German Chancellor Hollweg expresses concern that Russia would support Serbia in the current diplomatic crisis.

21 July 1914.
German fears were well founded. On this date both France and Russia declare their support for Serbia.

25 July 1914.
Serbia declares a general mobilization rather then submit to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum for punishment of the murderers.

26 July 1914.
Russia orders a partial mobilization vs Austria-Hungary.

27 July 1914.
France begins making preparations for mobilization.

28 July 1914.
Austria-Hungary mobilizes vs Serbia and declares war.

29 July 1914.
British Government orders the army to prepare for mobilization.

30 July 1914.
France mobilizes 5 army corps (i.e. an entire field army) on the German border.

30 July 1914.
Russia orders a complete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
Austria-Hungary orders a complete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
Belgium orders a compete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
German army ordered to prepare for mobilization.

1 Aug 1914.
France orders a complete mobilization.
Germany orders a complete mobilization.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 5, 2010)

Davebender, the run-up to WWi started much earlier:

A few points. It's nowhere near complete as it even if I knew everything it would take me too long to sum up all facts:

- The Prusian-French war in 1870. (revenge for the French) In my believe the most important one.
- Congress in Berlin 1878. Russia had won against the Turks, but England and Austria didn't like the resulting Russian influence in the Balkan. Russia lost most of their gain in that conference. (Russia not happy)
- French wanted more colonies in Northern Africa, especially Morocco, started talking in secret to the British, Italians and Spain, but didn't open negotiations with the Germans who had great interests in that country. 
- France and Britain started military cooperation, aimed at a big war against Germany.
- 1911, France sends troops to Morocco, without telling the Germans (Britain was informed. Germany sends a cruiser to Tangier. They ask compensation for leaving Morocco to the French.
- German economical and colonial expansion, threatening Britain as the biggest colonial country in the world. In 1912 the German economical growth was twice as big as the British. (Britain not happy!) Germans needed sources for that, but Britain and France prevented that happening.
- the last point resulted in a more aggressive German colony-politics, bringing them in conflict with both France and Britain.
- Germany making secret agreements with Austria against ally Russia. Not very smart....
- Secret French-Russian convention in 1894. Russia wanted an open route to the Mediterranean (Dardanelles). They decided for a big war against Germany, estimated in 1917.
- 1901 King Edward VII came in power in the UK. He didn't like Germany very much.
- in 1905, Edward Grey became Minister of Foreign Affairs in Britain, also no friend of Germany. Started secret talks with the French to help them with a war against Germany. (there goes the statement that England 'only' wanted to help Belgium in their neutrality).
- The weapon race at sea, starting around 1900 between Germany and Britain.
- Russia support Serbia (Pan Serbian empire) in order to get more influence in the Balkan, countering Austria-Hungaria.
- the German support for Austria in that same matter.
- Support of the French and British for the Russians. In this matter.
- a shot in Sarajevo in 1914.....


It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. This is of course the propaganda of the Entente, victors of the war and able to write history. In reality the situations is not so clear. IMHO The French and the Russians were most guilty of the War. They deliberately steered towards a clash with Germany from 1904, both with their own reasons. I'm not saying Germany was not guilty, but to blame them for everything is in my eyes unfair. An unbiased observer would say that both sides had as much guild.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2010)

Interesting post Marcel. I tend to hold the same views as you wrote there. I believe that that the truth lies somewhere within your post. I believe that the guilt should be shared by all sides for this war. Of course I believe the "reparations" were too high.


----------



## davebender (Dec 5, 2010)

All colonial disputes between Germany and Britain were settled in 1890 with the Treaty of Zanzibar. 

It was France that was constantly butting heads with Britain during the 1890s in places like Sudan and Malaysia. Not to mention the French conquests of Dahomey and Madagascar.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2010)

"... It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. "

Marching into Belgium in 1914 at the tip of bayonets isn't "aggression" in your world Marcel?

You make fine points in explaining the colonial back story - all of which I agree with - especially France. But you and I both know that if a group of people stand around urging each other to shoot first - and someone does - that person still bears full responsibility for "acting" - for shooting first. And that's Germany's story. The old preemptive strike that we see again and again with both the Germans and the Japanese. That is war-like behavior in my Canadian books, .

MM


----------



## davebender (Dec 5, 2010)

> preemptive strike that we see again and again with both the Germans and the Japanese


1914 Germany was the last major European nation to order their army to prepare for mobilization. That doesn't sound like a preemptive strike to me. 

1914 Japan didn't mobilize until after Britain asked them to, offering a slice of Chinese territory as compensation. That isn't a preemptive strike either. It's a business deal initiated by Britain.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. "
> 
> Marching into Belgium in 1914 at the tip of bayonets isn't "aggression" in your world Marcel?
> 
> ...


Of course it's aggression, but that doesn't mean they're the only one guilty. Looking only at who struck first is way too simplistic too look at historical events. A bunch of countries were deliberately steering towards war. France and Russia for instance. France because they wanted to reclaim the Elzas, Russia because they wanted access to the Mediterranean. It were Russia and France who stirred up the unrest in the Balkan, very well knowing that because of all the alliances, Germany would eventually become at war with them, which was precisely what they wanted. So the aggression started much earlier then only that attack on Belgium. Having said that, I would say that Germany was not free of the blame. And yes, they did the first move in the believe that attack was the best defence.
I still say that Versailles was unfair, claiming that Germany was the only aggressor in this war. France got the war they wanted so badly and got more then they could handle.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2010)

"... I still say that Versailles was unfair "

Fair isn't the point. Versailles was ineffective - it created a framework for half-baked countries and half-baked ideas and almost guaranteed the 2nd WW. Compare Versailles to the Marshall Plan 25 years later .... THAT was constructive.

".... 1914 Germany was the last major European nation to order their army to prepare for mobilization." So???? . When they mobilized they did so effectively and they were well-equipped and ready for war. 

MM


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2010)

> When Germany mobilized they did so effectively and they were well-equipped and ready for war.


So did 1914 France and Russia. For that matter so did the USA after 9/11/2001. And Britain after Argentina seized the Falklands. Is there something wrong with being militarily competent during peacetime?


----------



## timshatz (Dec 6, 2010)

Germany had to go to war in WW1 when it mobilized. Sad to say, but it was in the plan. They couldn't fight and win a two front war (and they didn't). So they had to end one of them quickly. Taking advantage of their central location, they tried to take France out quickly. It was the whole idea, strategically, behind the Von Schlieffen Plan (or memo). 

Germany knew the longer the war, the less chance they had to win. Give it a good shot. 

As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was a pretty poor document. Didn't give France the security she wanted, didn't punish Germany as much as it pissed them off royally nor did it make the odds of another war smaller. If anything, it increased the chance of a rematch. 

Nobody came away from Versailles happy.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... I still say that Versailles was unfair "


You'll have to quote the whole sentence because you keep missing the point: "I still say that Versailles was unfair, claiming that Germany was the only aggressor in this war." I am claiming that Germany was unrighteously accused of being the sole aggressor in WWI. That's what I'm trying to say. 
For the rest I agree with you on Versailles. It was in-effective, not very well considered, and revenge-full. It was THE reason WWII happened 21 years later. The Allies did a much better job in 1945, at least on the western part of Germany.
What I don't agree on is that Germany should have been punished harder. After all, Western Germany wasn't actually punished after WWII. If a country is not punished enough after a war like WWI, then no punishment will be enough. Some-one said the civilians back home in Germany were not affected by the war. This is not true. They had an economical blockade for 4 years. Sure they were affected. And most of their sons never returned. 
The western allies did better in 1945 in that they made Germany their friend instead of their enemy. Germany had no reason to start another war.


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2010)

General mobilization (as opposed to partial mobilization against Serbia) caused a huge disruption to the national economy. Consequently it was never practised during peacetime. A major European war became inevitable on 30 July 1914 when Russia ordered general mobilization.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2010)

"... Is there something wrong with being militarily competent during peacetime?"

Nope. Not at all. Better know how to do it quickly and effectively. Etc. Etc.  BUT - if you commit FIRST you're "it". If you move first and "win" (Israel 1967) you're a winner. If you commit first and "lose" you're an *aggressor.* Unfair but simple.

"... You'll have to quote the whole sentence because you keep missing the point". 

Do I? My point, Marcel, is that "fair" is irrelevant. 

MM


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Is there something wrong with being militarily competent during peacetime?"
> 
> Nope. Not at all. Better know how to do it quickly and effectively. Etc. Etc.  BUT - if you commit FIRST you're "it". If you move first and "win" (Israel 1967) you're a winner. If you commit first and "lose" you're an *aggressor.* Unfair but simple.


And if you don't treat your enemy "fair" after you've won, you'll be the looser 21 years later like France.



michaelmaltby said:


> "... You'll have to quote the whole sentence because you keep missing the point".
> 
> Do I? My point, Marcel, is that "fair" is irrelevant.
> 
> MM


That depends on which point of view you take. In this case as I pointed out, France payed dearly for not being fair in 1918. So in this case "fair' was very much relevant.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2010)

"... France payed dearly for not being fair in 1918." And for all the triumphs, glories and disasters of Napoleon, and for the hubris and pretensions of the Louis Napoleon era, right up to the total emasculation at Sedan. .

If Bismark had been a little "fairer" maybe France wouldn't have wanted so badly to make Germany suffer. Where does it stop and start, Marcel? 

MM


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2010)

"Fair" has no place in international diplomacy. That's unfortunate but it's the way the world works. Otherwise there would have been plebiscites in Alsace-Lorraine, Posen, Austria, Sudatenland, Tyrol, Memel, Danzig, Slovakia, Croatia, Teschen etc. during 1919.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 7, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... France payed dearly for not being fair in 1918." And for all the triumphs, glories and disasters of Napoleon, and for the hubris and pretensions of the Louis Napoleon era, right up to the total emasculation at Sedan. .
> 
> If Bismark had been a little "fairer" maybe France wouldn't have wanted so badly to make Germany suffer. Where does it stop and start, Marcel?
> 
> MM


Hi Michael,

Fair statement about Bismarck, although I believe France came-off relatively well in 1871 after the total victory of the Prusians.

I'm not quite sure what you try to accomplish here in this discussion. Are you countering my statement that all sides were equally guilty of WWI? If that is so, your answers are a little puzzling to me (might be my English ). Could you please clarify?


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2010)

I think it is more than "fair" to say that all of the major participants in WW1 had something to gain from the expected brief war in 1914. Russia would advance the cause (wrong-headed as it seems now) of pan-Slavism, and consolidate her dominance of the Balkans at a time when the Ottoman Empire was fumbling towards total collapse. France would obtain _revanche_ and recover Alsace and Lorraine. Britain would be able to crush the upstart Imperial Navy before it became a serious threat. Italy, rushing to the aid of the victors, would gain a place at the top table in European affairs. America, when she joined, would assert the primacy of the New World over the Old by effectively settling Europe's problems for them, and becoming an arbiter of a _Pax Americana_ through Wilson's Fourteen Points and the League of Nations.

The Austrians, like the Russians, were seeking to set themselves up as the successor to the Ottoman influence in the Balkans. Smashing Serbia would demonstrate that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the unavoidable sucessor to the Ottoman one. And Germany would cement here new-found position in global affairs by finally crushing the French and ending the dominance of the Royal Navy. 

There was something in it for everyone. With hindsight, we forget that in August 1914, all the great powers foresaw a short war ending in glorious victory for their cause. Had they have known what was to come, in both military and political they might have considered differently. But they did not, and perhaps could not have done so. I don't believe that is something that our generations can, or should, judge them for.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2010)

The outbreak of the war in 1914 was certainly avoidable...it was an unnecessary war.

But having fallen into war, I believe the terrible costs paid were wasted. I agree with Pershing....the germans should not have been able to negotiate a peace. Pershing believed that the war should have been prosecuted until the germans surrendered unconditionally. He prophetically stated that we will have to do this allover again in 20 years after the armistice. This arose because the Germans believed they were not defeated. 


Truer words were never spoken


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 7, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The outbreak of the war in 1914 was certainly avoidable...it was an unnecessary war.



That's not how it was seen in 1914. From the British perspective (or propaganda if you prefer) it was seen as a worthwhile and just war. The motivating factors towards war were no less significant at the time than those which led the next generation into WWII in 1939. I feel we often view WWI solely through the lens of trench warfare and perceptions thereof ("Dulce et Decorum Est") rather than how things were perceived at the time. It took a considerable time for people to become disenchanted with the war, indeed the idea that the Great War was a folly, the "Lions led by donkeys" concept, did not emerge until the post-war period. In 1914 and throughout most of the duration, the First World War was perceived as something that had to be done to preserve freedom.

I agree with your other statements, though. The negotiated settlement led directly to many people, not least of them on Adolf Hitler, believing that the soldiers had been sold out by the politicians, leading directly to the militarisation of the populace that took place in the 1930s.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2010)

"... Are you countering my statement that all sides were equally guilty of WWI?"

Yes and, no, Marcel. . I think WW1 was an event that was unstoppable. Like events after the French Revolution that set the stage for re-thinking/re-shaping Europe (the 1848 Revolutions, unification movements, etc.). WW1 was the culmination of those changes plus the growing effects of massive industrialization and the demand for "resources" from "empires" and the natural rise and decline of entities (Germany rising, Turkey declining).

Britain could have saved herself by not responding to the invasion of Belgium - maybe - but mostly, Marcel, what I react to on this thread and others like it is the "after-the-fact" assertion that Germany needs understanding - that they were somehow "forced" into actions that they didn't want to partake in. I don't buy any of that for either WW1 or WW2. You make your bed and you lie on it. My Grand Dad and uncles didn't leave promising lives in Canada to "rescue" France. They went because a "little" country - Belgium - was invaded and broken by Germany. Of course THAT distinction isn't logical and I know that , but when a country angers others by its behavior enough for the citizens to VOLUNTARILY leave their hearths and homes and go to war it is no longer a rational affair - but rather an emotional and perhaps moral one.

And THAT is genie that - escaped from the bottle - is so hard to stuff back in.

My family was raised and raised me to believe: "Do onto others as you would have others do onto you." And I know that, too, is problematic : Use gas on us Germany and we'll do it to you. Bomb our cities, Germany, and we'll do it tenfold to you.

Unfortunately - the alternatives are "turn the other cheek" and "strike first". Neither are game plans for the long run although each can deliver short turn results in the right circumstances.

I twist and turn on this, Marcel, because WW1 is such a massive expression of humanity's worst characteristics (war) and at the same time the instincts for war are completely NATURAL and part of our being.

I turn to the Romans for insight on this: Pray for peace, prepare for war. History teaches *that *is natural AND prudent.

MM


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

I don't think there was ever a war that couldn't have been avoided. Kinda like pregnancy, now and again when you are screwing around, it happens.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 7, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Are you countering my statement that all sides were equally guilty of WWI?"
> 
> Yes and, no, Marcel. . I think WW1 was an event that was unstoppable. Like events after the French Revolution that set the stage for re-thinking/re-shaping Europe (the 1848 Revolutions, unification movements, etc.). WW1 was the culmination of those changes plus the growing effects of massive industrialization and the demand for "resources" from "empires" and the natural rise and decline of entities (Germany rising, Turkey declining).
> 
> ...


You know Michael, here in Europe everything is the other way around. We blame Germany for everything that occurred in both WW's. They are always the villain. This is simply not true and for an historian it makes sense to clear this up. It isn't about the boys that fought their in their best believes and with their best intentions. The war was made by filthy politics. It's our task to learn from that, so we'll become better. The boys were the victims, no matter what side. They always are. 
What I try to make clear is *not* that Germany was forced in this war. They were willingly starting this war and so were the French, British. What I want to make clear is that all these countries did their filthy politics and made the war inevitable. People still believe that it were only the Germans who wanted WWI and started it, just like WWII. This is not true. England, France, Russia, Germany Austria, you name it, all wanted this war and deliberately steered towards it. Except maybe for Belgium.


----------



## renrich (Dec 7, 2010)

Glad to see this thread has come back to life. A good dialogue. When I get time, I intend to advance the proposition that in 1917, if the US had not entered the war, an accomodation might have been reached which would have changed world history. In the meantime I believe that there was sufficient blame to go around for all the combatants to share and that Germany's treatment after the war was unwise and "unfair".


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2010)

"... The boys were the victims, no matter what side."

Agreed, Marcel.

Renrich - I await your proposition with keen anticipation. 

MM


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glad to see this thread has come back to life. A good dialogue. When I get time, I intend to advance the proposition that in 1917, if the US had not entered the war, an accomodation might have been reached which would have changed world history. In the meantime I believe that there was sufficient blame to go around for all the combatants to share and that Germany's treatment after the war was unwise and "unfair".



I kinda agree with that argument. The US tipped the balance when everyone was exhausted in Europe. There might have been an accomidation. But, there is also a measure of wishful thinking in this perspective. Usually, wars end with somebody winning or losing. If that hasn't happened, then it is either half time or the war is fought on economically after the fighting has stopped. 

I would like to think the Europeans would have ended the war and that would've brought a last peace as we seem to see now (jury is out on that one for now though it looks promising) but I have my doubts too. The integration that has come from WW2 was created as a byproduct of exhaustion, not rational politics. It was live together or die at each other's throats.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 7, 2010)

Marcel said:


> People still believe that it were only the Germans who wanted WWI and started it, just like WWII. This is not true. England, France, Russia, Germany Austria, you name it, all wanted this war and deliberately steered towards it. Except maybe for Belgium.



Marcel,

If we follow the Clausewitzian concept that war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means, then what you term "filthy politics" is actually people looking out for national self-interest. This has always happened and always will happen. I don't think anyone "wanted" the war but if countries can't reach agreement from negotiations and treaties, and the motivation is sufficiently strong, then war is often the outcome (unless the other side folds, in which case you've won anyway). 

You also seem to infer that the Allies also "wanted" WWII. I sincerely hope you're not saying that because I don't think anything could be further from the truth.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 7, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> You also seem to infer that the Allies also "wanted" WWII. I sincerely hope you're not saying that because I don't think anything could be further from the truth.



No, I don't believe the allies anticipated that their peace treaty would end up in a new war. They wanted to kill Germany economically and cripple it militarily. They did a bad job and it worked only the other way. With hindsight I would say that France ruined it by their harsh demands. While fully comprehensible, after what they went through, I believe that their pity attempt to still gain their goal was ultimately the cause of the rise of extremists in Germany and in the end WWII. I believe Wilson had the clearest view of what should be done to Germany. I believe he wanted to stop the polarisation in Europe. He utterly failed.
It is of course easy with hindsight to judge. They could not foresee at the time what would happen and at that time it seemed logical. But we have the luxury to learn from it.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

Marcel, I think you might be a bit harsh on the French on this one (am I actually defending the French? Guess I am, who would've thought that would've happened...ever). They'd been invaded by the German 2x in less than 50 years with terrible results both times. At Versailles, the French tried to ensure there wasn't a third time because she realized she was pretty much on her own. The Americans weren't going to help, they wanted to be repaid for their loans and go home. The British weren't, they were worried about their empire. The Italians were, argueably, worse off than the French. 

The only thing the French had was a Germany that was on the ropes. They decided to make the best of it and hopefully end the invasions of France that happened every generation or so. 

Didn't work, as we all pretty much know. Bummer for the French.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 8, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Marcel, I think you might be a bit harsh on the French on this one (am I actually defending the French? Guess I am, who would've thought that would've happened...ever). They'd been invaded by the German 2x in less than 50 years with terrible results both times. At Versailles, the French tried to ensure there wasn't a third time because she realized she was pretty much on her own. The Americans weren't going to help, they wanted to be repaid for their loans and go home. The British weren't, they were worried about their empire. The Italians were, argueably, worse off than the French.
> 
> The only thing the French had was a Germany that was on the ropes. They decided to make the best of it and hopefully end the invasions of France that happened every generation or so.
> 
> Didn't work, as we all pretty much know. Bummer for the French.


Yes of course, that's why I wrote that it was very much understandable. But in hindsight it was wrong. They wanted to cripple the Germans, but as we know now, this is very difficult to do on a long term. If they wanted to stop the invasions they should have stopped provoking the Germans. Instead they created more bitterness.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Yes of course, that's why I wrote that it was very much understandable. But in hindsight it was wrong. They wanted to cripple the Germans, but as we know now, this is very difficult to do on a long term. If they wanted to stop the invasions they should have stopped provoking the Germans. Instead they created more bitterness.





It was wrong, only in the sense of allowing the germans a negotiating position. The conclusion to WWII IMO demonstrates what might have been achieved in 1919. In 1945 the germans were utterly defeated, and not just their leadership. the country was occupied, all its rights, values and puffed up pride destroyed. The Germans were left with nothing but the cold prospect of utter defeat to comfort them. They were publicly humiliated as a nation, robbed of all self respect, and any notion that they somehow had been robbed of defeat, rather having lost it fair of square. Only in relatively recent times have we seen a quiet rise in revisionist histories that try to somehow paint the germans as not losing the second war, but these people invariably lose, because the world we live in today is a totally different place to what it was in 1945. 

From this, the new Germany emerged. It has virtually no links to its old past, it is a model of democracy and free thinking. There is scarcely any nation on earth that could claim greater freedom, greater belief in the rule of law, greater tolerance, than the new Germany. This demonstrates, in spades, what needed to be done in 1919, and what could have been achieved if the total victory so close to the allies grasp, had not been allowed to slip from their fingers.

If anyone was robbed as a result of the peace at Versailles, it was the allies. They tried for a shortcut to totasl victory, and in so doing lost just about everything that might have been gained as a result of the terrible cost in lives and money.

My peace might not be justice, but it would have been meaningful, and in the long run, better for everyone concerned.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 8, 2010)

Once again, Parsifal, you sum it up to a T -- "... If anyone was robbed as a result of the peace at Versailles, it was the allies". Right to this very day. I think the French STILL don't get it - whereas when you look at the state of Germany today - they are focused on reality, not distant memories of the glories of empires past , or, la langue pure. (I fear the Germans have learned too well. Today we need them in Af'stan, armed and fit). 

MM


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 11, 2010)

Agreed, it could have been avoidable, but you would have left a mad man in control of one of the largest armies in Continental Europe. This accomodation attempt, during the Interwar Period was what led to WW2. Germany was receiving mixed messages from the main powers before WW2. It was also receiving mixed messages from the other powers before WW1. At the start, WW1 could have been avoided, but once events started to build up, it would have become harder and harder to avoid war. The assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinard was only the straw that broke the camel's back. There were a lot of factors both large and small in Europe that built up to the first World War. I think though the Russo-Sino War happened beforehand nobody on either side was quite expecting it to be so bloody and take so long. Everyone expected a quick war with home before Christmas Time being the common refrain because that was the type of war that had happened in Europe up to that time. Events snowballed, so we can look back at events and see things clearer, but when you are in the midst of events it is harder to maintain this clarity. It is like, at the moment it is hard to see when events in Iraq and Afganistan will stablize, and the process will finish because it is still ongoing.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 11, 2010)

I respond to TimShatz.

Agreed, it could have been avoidable, but you would have left a mad man in control of one of the largest armies in Continental Europe. This accomodation attempt, during the Interwar Period was what led to WW2. Germany was receiving mixed messages from the main powers before WW2. It was also receiving mixed messages from the other powers before WW1. At the start, WW1 could have been avoided, but once events started to build up, it would have become harder and harder to avoid war. 

The assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinard was only the straw that broke the camel's back. There were a lot of factors both large and small in Europe that built up to the first World War. I think though the Russo-Sino War happened beforehand nobody on either side was quite expecting it to be so bloody and take so long. Everyone expected a quick war with home before Christmas Time being the common refrain because that was the type of war that had happened in Europe up to that time. 

Events snowballed, so we can look back at events and see things clearer, but when you are in the midst of events it is harder to maintain this clarity. It is like, at the moment it is hard to see when events in Iraq and Afganistan will stablize, and the process will finish because it is still ongoing.

The whole problem, is how to decide what to do at the same time and make the correct decision that makes sure that the peace is maintained without future evil implications. Kaiser Wilheim and Hitler were two evil figures, that if they were never checked and Chamberlain's policy of Apeasement was followed would continue to go on and on and on with their greed to obtain everything they could. It is the larger scale equivalent of giving a bully an ice-cream while he has a victim he has beaten-up lying on the ground and is selecting his next victim. The whole problem is one of motive and Kaiser Wilheim and Hitler all aimed to complete a quest that Alexander the Great almost acheived...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2010)

"... I think though the Russo-Sino War happened beforehand". ???

Russo-Japan War, 1904-05 ....?

MM


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 12, 2010)

I thought it was before, thanks for that, just had a history blank with my dates. That the Russo-Sino war had a lot of the innovations that contributed to the stalemate during WW1. There was the widespread use of barbed-wire, trenches, machine-guns, grenades, rifles, snipers.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2010)

Are you sure you aren't talking about the Sino-Japanese War .....
SinoJapaneseWar.com Sino-Japanese War 1894-95

MM


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 15, 2011)

I can recommend a very interesting book: "13 days" by Clive Ponting.

It contains a range of the original documents and telegrams between the legations and their capitals in the different countries.

It surely shows that Germany was not into mobilisation and was the last one to get ready, nearly to the point of getting hurt in the process (where would Russia go besides Austria?)

Unfortunately, the absolute un-professional and clumsy way of Austria handling the Sarajevo story got everybody into it.

If Austria had made a quick punitive war on Serbia, as in 1-2 weeks and finished the this police action, war could (maybe?) have been avoided. At least for some years.

Austria lost the initiative and the whole thing just got muddled with Russia mobilising.

Amazing to see that during Bismarck, UK and Germany were very close and France isolated. Wilhelm II got that friendship stuffed up.

The other thing was probably that all wars up until WWI were wars between ARMIES, not NATIONS.

The really deep underlying causes should probably be found in Charlemagne's settlement of Europe, none of these were really changed until after WWII.

Is that a fair comment as well?

Ivan


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2011)

Am reading an interesting book called "The History of Warfare." It is by John Keegan who is probably the foremost military historian alive today. Book published in 1993 and is a tough read because a lot of it addresses warfare in ancient history BC, for example, but is worthwhile because of the light which he sheds on very important but not very sexy issues like logistics and supplies. In the section on Logistics and Supply he points out that the Civil War in America was the first "Railroad War." In fact there was, in 1860, 30000 miles of railroad track in the US. That was more than the rest of the world combined. The Union controlled most of it and that control played a huge part in the union victory.

In the period following that war there was a lot of railroad building in Europe which played a big role in the rapid mobilisation of the various armies at the outset of the war. Even the Russians were able to mobilise much faster than the Germans believed they could. However, the railroads could not help much in getting supplies to the front lines after they reached the rail heads. For the most part horses were needed to pull the wagons of supplies that had to reach close to the battle zones where from that point, man packing had to take over in the fire zone. In 1914-18 the largest single category of cargo unloaded at French ports for the BEF was horse fodder. The Germans used 1.4M horses in WW1 and most of those died There was a shortage of horses and horse breeders did well in the US because so many were sent to Europe.

During WW2, the British and Americans and to some extent, the USSR, were well equipped with trucks and gasoline, thanks to the US. The Germans had to rely a great deal on horses with 2.75M being used and most died. The Red Army used 3.5M horses. The US supplied to the USSR 395,883 trucks and 2.7M tons of fuel, which the Soviets admitted was crucial in the advance from Stalingrad to Berlin.


----------



## imalko (Apr 11, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Unfortunately, the absolute un-professional and clumsy way of Austria handling the Sarajevo story got everybody into it.
> 
> If Austria had made a quick punitive war on Serbia, as in 1-2 weeks and finished the this police action, war could (maybe?) have been avoided. At least for some years.



Shame on Serbs for rejecting humiliating Austrian ultimatum and for defending themselves successfully in 1914.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2011)

".... Shame on Serbs for rejecting humiliating Austrian ultimatum and for defending themselves successfully in 1914.".

No shame. But the Tzar should have stayed out of it --- protector of the Slavs --- indeed. And that attitude *predated* "Germanification" under Bismarck's leadership.

Some protector. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Apr 11, 2011)

Even if Tzar indeed stayed out of it, I doubt the French would. We were on much better terms with the French in those days then in the recent years you know.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2011)

"... Even if Tzar indeed stayed out of it, I doubt the French would".

This is indeed probably very true. Another example of France looking for cause to redress her own defeats, blunders and misadventures that you and I have sparred over in previous threads. 

I was thinking about this topic after I posted this AM .... there was a book several years back that postulated that Britain needn't have honored its agreements in 1914 and gone to war ... and what a difference that would have made. Originally I pooh poohed that theory but the more I think on it the more it seems true.

If Britain had refused to land an army in France - and stuck to keeping the sea lanes open for Her commerce with Empire - World War I would have have never become a WW. Just a big nasty Continental war between emerging and fading empires and emerging nationalisms.

No body gained anything from WWI - except the USA. Poland and Czechoslovakia were only momentary "creations" at some other countries' expense. Versailles (in 1918 -19) was as delusional in its way as efforts by various countries and regimes are today to "redistribute wealth" (carbon credits, etc. etc.)

By going to France in 1914, Britain committed economic suicide.

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 11, 2011)

Been busy, so I’m a late entrant in this fray. Let’s start with the official party line as written by the victors: Germany was driven by an egotistical and determined emperor who was bent on European domination. Britain was neutral and peace-loving, but would not stand idly by while Germany invaded and attacked countries that it had pledged to help. So when Germany declared was on France on 3 August 1914 and began its advance through Belgium, it triggered a European war that became a global war as colonies of the British Empire provided men and munitions in support of the Mother country.
No war occurs in a vacuum and the roots of WWI go back well over 100 years and while all countries involved share some of the blame the lions share goes to the Lion, the British one that is. Britain’s imperial pretensions and her determination to maintain her place in the world, including conflict with Germany over her colonial ambitions is/was the most important.
To see Britain’s imperial policy in action let’s go to the Crimean War (1853 – 56). Russia in desperation to obtain an approach to the Mediterranean, destroy the Ottoman Turks, and seize Constantinople, invades the Crimean peninsula. 
The Ottoman Empire was on its last legs, central European powers, and the newly resurgent Balkan states, were circling, waiting to grab a piece. Thus the British, fearful of losing the advantages of empire, intervened on behalf of the Turks. The British believed that Russian expansion southward would eventually threaten their interest in India, the crown jewel of the Empire. Russia had already expanded southward into Transcaucasia and was involved in central Asia and Afghanistan. Thus the two Anglo-Afghan Wars (1839-42)(1878 -80) and the British invasion of Tibet (1903). 
All this reveals exactly how far Britain was prepared to go to preserve its empire. British efforts to preserve the crumbling Ottoman Empire blocked the ambitions of Balkan nations trying to free themselves from the Turks. Thus instead of a quick, painful, rapid dismemberment we had continuous warfare for over eighty years stoking the fires of Balkan nationalism, which bled over into the destabilization of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thus the passions that launched the bullet that ended the life of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 have their roots in British Imperial policy.
As for Imperial Russia, humiliated by the British they turned to the far east leading to a confrontation with Japan in 1904-05. In eastern Europe they promoted the drive for Slavic independence becoming the protector of the Balkan Slavs supporting their struggle for independence from the Austrian Hapsburgs. Thus Russia allied itself with France, in a strange twist, becoming an ally of its old enemy Britain.
So the wonderful world of pre-WWI Europe: Britain and France suspicious of German intentions form an alliance. Germany accordingly made an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire to her south. This alienated the Russians, protectors of the Serbs, so they join the British and French in a mutual alliance against aggression. Russian intensions to move against the Turks prompted the Turks to ally with Germany.
Europe was on the point of a needle. The assassination of the Archduke tipped the balance. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany, Germany invades Belgium to get at the French bringing Belgium into the conflict. Britain was under no specific obligation to come to Belgium’s aid, since the 1839 Treaty of London was a collective agreement among nations not including Germany which did not become a unified country until 1871. This did not matter to Imperial Britian, it gave them the excuse they had been looking for and the countries leadership took it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 12, 2011)

"... All this reveals exactly how far Britain was prepared to go to preserve its empire."

Transpose your words, Mike: A_ll this reveals exactly how far the USA was prepared to go to preserve American free-market capitalism._ 

It isn't a conspiracy ...

Britain's "Empire" began with Ireland, the Channel Islands and Newfoundland. Not much from which to launch a Francis Drake, a Nelson, Frobisher, Shackleton or Cooke.

Britain's Empire was hard-earned and fair-won - and the Royal Navy was _*the*_ instrument of governance.

Other than regurgitating dogma: "... let's start with the party line", what exactly are you trying to say, Mike ...? Lots of words but what's your point .... that the topic is complicated, tortured and nuanced ..? Yes. Agreed. 

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 13, 2011)

Boiled down to its simplist terms, Germany did indeed START WWI by its invasion of Belgium, no arguement there, but Germany had been pushed, proded and poked into position mostly by Britain
The late nineteenth century was the last major era of imperialist expansion. All the great European powers were involved. Africa was rapidly carved up between the main European powers and harsh conditions were imposed on independent states that could not be conquered outright, such as China. Eventually every available territory was claimed as a colony by one or other of the major European powers.
By the turn of the twentieth century Germany was a rising force in the world eager to acquire an empire comparable to Britain. In 1871 the Germans achieved their dream of unification which had been strongly resisted by France who preferred a weak and divided Germany. By 1884 Germany had put together an overseas empire, but a small one compared to those administered by Britain and France. The scramble for African colonies had been driven by the idea that a nations economic survival depended upon it being able to offload surplus products into overseas possessions. Thus German imperialists argued that Britain’s dominant position in the world gave it an unfair advantage in international markets, thus limiting Germany’s economic growth and threatening its security. Britain meanwhile was determined to continue its expansionist plans because it foresaw a possible decline in its share of the world’s export trade with the rise of competition from Germany, America, and France.
During the Bismarck period, the Iron Chancellor managed to gain what he wanted by subtle means, without overt confrontation. However when the young, inexperienced, and impatient Wilhelm II was made Kaiser the situation started to spiral out of control. Britain put pressure on Germany to limit the size of its naval fleet in the North Sea and hemmed in the Germans on land by their treaties with France and Russia. France was also trying to oust the Germans from their territory, Alsace-Lorraine, acquired by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. All these pressures fed German resentment until the moment it exploded.
In 1902 Britain signed a new alliance with Japan to prevent German expansion in that area. The British assured Germany that their alliance with France and Russia were only about ending old disputes and had nothing to do with joining those nations in the event of war. Assurances aside, the fact remained that Britain had allied itself with two nations convinced that Germany was their enemy. The Germans were worried.
In the first Moroccan Crisis of 1905, Wilhelm II supported Moroccan independence, thus removing them as a French protectorate. Britain had to choose between supporting French ambitions or the German move toward an independent Moroccan state. In response Britain entered into military consultations with the French and delivered a blunt “Hands off” message to Germany.
Meanwhile in South Africa, the British (unsanctioned but a good example of the British left hand not knowing what the right was doing) Jameson raid into the Transvaal was repulsed. Ever the diplomat, Wilhelm II sends a telegram to the President of the Transvaal, the infamous Kruger telegram:
"I express to you my sincere congratulations that, without appealing to the help of friendly Powers, you and your people have succeeded in repelling with your own forces the armed bands which had broken into your country, and in maintaining the independence of your country against foreign aggression."
Sent from British telegrapher to telegrapher along British telegraph wires through British relay stations, the telegram soon became public and was printed in British newspapers. British public opinion turned quickly against the Germans in what was seen as an attempt to interfere in a British sphere of influence.
By the time of the second Moroccan crises Britain was firmly on the French side and Germany was encircled by hostile forces. In 1912 Britain added fuel to the smoldering fire by signing a naval agreement with France pledging to defend the French coast along the channel and the Atlantic. More fuel was poured on in 1913 with the formation of the British Expeditionary Force, which comprised six divisions created to fight on the continent.
British imperial ambitions simply could not afford for France to be defeated in another war with Germany. For that would make Germany the strongest nation in continental Europe, at a time when that country, was attempting to gain control of the oceans and expand its sphere of influence into the Balkans and Turkey. Britain’s leaders clearly felt that they had to join France in standing against Germany sooner or later; they simply awaited the right pretext.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh gee, poor germany, not allowed to conquer Europe by the agressive machination of britain. wot a load of tripe, to put it mildly. 

Whilst the 2nd Reich was not the monster that the third reich was, it was still a monster, make no mistake. Her aims were clear....dominate Europe by whatever means needed....including, (and preferably), by military means. 

Sorry if that offends, but such dominance of Europe by a single power was totally unnacceptable to british NATIONAL (not Imperial) interests. A Europe dominated by a single nation was a europe capable of destroying Britain, AND her empire. Thats why the british since before napoleon have always supported the second most powerful contintal power in Europe. By supporting the second continental nation, the brits could maintain a balance of power, and thereby ensure no single nation achieve the dominance of the continent that the british so feared. Its a strange warped logic to argue that the british were responsible for German aggression because they were defending their national interests. What were they supposed to do....allow the germans to overrun western europe, and then their own country as well, and not raise a finger in reply???? IMO thats a ridiculous notion, nobody put a gun to germany's head to make them invade Belgium, nobody was holding the germans to econmic ransom, except that other countries, following their own self interest took steps to maximise that self interest. The british should not be held up as responsible for causing WWI simply because they were good at looking after themselves. The difference between the british and german behaviours is a fine one, but nevertheless significant. Britain was not subjegating other white, western european nations to get their way, wheras the germans were more than prepared to do that.

Napoleon once said "Prussia has emerged from the barrel of a cannon", and he was spot on in that assessment. About as amenable to other nations interests as a wild dog after a rabbit in my opinion. At great national cost, the british thankfully took care of that wild dog, twice.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 14, 2011)

"... Prussia has emerged from the barrel of a cannon".

Great quote. And if he had been alive after Bismarck's unification he could rightly have said: Germany emerged from the barrel of a cannon.

I agree with your analysis, Parsifal. 


MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 14, 2011)

As I had stated earlier Germany certainly initiated A WAR by its invasion of Belgium It became a WORLD WAR due to the interlocking treaties forged by Britain. The German invasion could have easily been handled as a continental war. Back anyone into a corner and leave them no option and they will fight. Britain and France wanted a war to settle the "German problem" once and for all. None of the countries involved expected the TYPE of war that resulted. Almost all expected to be home by Christmas.
Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer" Three Examples:
MID-EAST
The British had recognized the importance of the region's oil wealth as early as 1916 when the British secretly signed the 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement with France which called for the division of the Ottoman Empire into a patchwork of states that would be ruled by the British and French. The secret agreement was exposed when the Soviet government retrieved a copy in 1921, but a year earlier, the oil factor had been officially recognized in the 1920 San Remo Treaty. In 1928, the Red Line Agreement was signed, which described the sharing of the oil wealth of former Ottoman territories by the British and French colonial governments, and how percentages of future oil production were to be allocated to British and French oil companies.
The desire to control the region's oil wealth led to the creation of artificial states such as Kuwait, and states with mixed Kurdish and Arab populations such as in Syria and Iraq. The arbitrary creation of borders and the installation of unpopular pro-colonial leaders served the purpose of dividing the local populations and ensuring the establishment of impotent client-regimes whose administrations were subservient to British colonial interests. 

INDIA
By 1700 the British East India Company began to dominate the India and control its foreign trade. To protect its interests, the company built forts, used soldiers to keep friendly rulers in power, and maintained its own army of Indian soldiers known as “Sepoys.” By the 1880s the British Parliament felt that the British government itself should assume responsibility for India, and to extend their colonial empire. In 1857 the Sepoy Rebellion broke out, an uprising of Indian troops serving under the British East India Company against oppressive British colonial authority. The uprising gave Parliament the excuse it needed to end the rule of the East India Company and assume control of India. 
After 1858 the British government set up a system of colonial rule in India. The British ruled about 2/3 of India while Indian rulers ruled the rest of the country. The goals of these policies, was to create an upper Indian class “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect.”
“In India, every European is automatically a member of the ruling race. Railway carriages, station waiting rooms, benches in parks are marked ‘For Europeans Only’ to have to put up with this in one’s own country is a humiliating reminder of our enslaved condition.” Based on these feelings periodic uprisings by thousands of enraged peasants resulted in the use of British troops on various occasions throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries however these revolts did not threaten British control, due to their poor organization and lack of arms. 

IRELAND 
Until 1921, the island of Ireland was governed as a single political unit as a colony of Britain. A combined political/military campaign by Irish nationalists between the years 1916 to 1921 forced the British government to consider its position. 
With the objective of `protecting English interests with an economy of English lives' (Lord Birkenhead), the partition of Ireland was conceived. 
Partition was imposed on the Irish people by an Act of Parliament, the Government of Ireland Act (1920), passed in the British legislature. The consent of the Irish people was never sought and was never freely given. 
Proffered as a solution under the threat of ``immediate and terrible war'' (Lloyd George, the then British Prime Minister). The Act made provision for the creation of two states in Ireland: the ``Irish Free State'' (later to become known as the Republic of Ireland), containing 26 of Ireland's 32 counties; and ``Northern Ireland'' containing the remaining six counties. 
The partition of Ireland was merely an innovation of the British governments tried and trusted colonial strategy of divide and rule, used throughout its former colonial empire. 
However, while the British government had the single objective of `protecting English interests', its strategy for achieving this created deeper, more acute and more bitter multiple divisions in Irish society than those previously fostered, and which, until then, had helped sustain British rule in Ireland. 
Partition did not only physically divide the national territory of Ireland. It spawned the Civil War in 1922, which has molded politics in the 26-County state ever since. It made more acute the divisions between nationalists and unionists in the Six-County state, and between the populations of the two states. Not least, it created real and lasting divisions among nationalists themselves.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 14, 2011)

".... Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer".

I'm no fan of that particular colonial stategy, Mike, but I don't think the facts about current world "hot spots" confirm your theory. Furthermore, the same strategy was used by the Romans, The Ottomans and the Chinese - to name just three major empire-building cultures.

Do you think Britain was responsible for the Civil War that divided the USA? How about the intentional "division" of Yugoslavia? Or perhaps the piracy in Somalia, or N Korea's nuclear ambitions are tied directly to humiliating experiences with the British colonialism. 

My favorite example is Quebec separatism in Canada - dastardly British, they should have just crushed the French after 1763 instead of allowing them to survive, prosper and divide Canada. 

India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus countries from Barbados, to Hong Kong, to Singapore are all vastly better off for their British experience. I believe even the USA picked up a trick or two from that experience .

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 14, 2011)

Michael, note I said "almost" places like N Korea where the British never "Empired" are excepted. And yes "divide and conquer" is tried and true but the British actively practiced this into the 20th century. The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire.
America (1) Revolutionary War - a direct result of British colonial policy
(2) War of 1812 - direct result of British policy on the high seas and an invasion of the US
(3) Slavery was brought to the New World by British colonists and slavery, while not a direct cause, certainly contributed to the southern states rebellion. Britain played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. Slavery was a legal institution in all of the 13 American colonies and Canada (acquired by Britain in 1763). The profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations amounted to 5% of the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The Somersett's case in 1772 was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England. The judgment emancipated the 10,000–14,000 slaves or possible slaves in England, who were mostly domestic servants. It also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the North American colonies) could not be enforced in England. In 1807, following many years of lobbying by the Abolitionist movement, the British Parliament voted to make the slave trade illegal anywhere in the Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807

Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861-65. The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French military intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States. A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861, (An American naval vessel boarded a British ship and forcefully removed two confederate diplomats. This violation of British neutral rights triggered an uproar in Britain. Eleven thousand British troops were sent to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, with plans to capture New York City if war broke out, and a sharp note was dispatched to Washington demanding return of the prisoners and an apology. Lincoln, concerned about Britain entering the war, ignored anti-British sentiment and issued an apology and ordered the prisoners released). More of a problem was the British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) building two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama, over vehement protests from the United States. The controversy continued after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships. The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2011)

_As I had stated earlier Germany certainly initiated A WAR by its invasion of Belgium It became a WORLD WAR due to the interlocking treaties forged by Britain. The German invasion could have easily been handled as a continental war. _

Britain did not forge the series of interlocking treaties in their entirety, and this does not alter the fact that Germany chose to initiate a war of aggression knowing those treaties were in place. Making treaties does not cause wars, breaking them does. 

In the 19th century Britain was the peak super power of the age. It made sense that nations would enter into bi-lateral and multilateral arrangements, with everything from trade through to defence being the focus of those treaty arrangements. I fail to see how this is any different to modern treaties like NATO , SEATO, ANZUS and previously CENTO, treaties initiated by the US as the post war premier power entered into with its with its allies. The fact that the US entered these arrangements to contain Soviet aggression does not make the US an aggressor, or the instigator of even the Cold War. It merely means the US took effective steps in its foreign relations to take care of what it perceived to be its intersts 

_Back anyone into a corner and leave them no option and they will fight. Britain and France wanted a war to settle the "German problem" once and for all.._

On what basis other than fantasy can you say that Britain and France wanted a war with Germany. How did they “back them into a corner”. This stuff would be funny except that it is spoken with earnest conviction. 

In point of fact Britain and france were afraid of germany, and would prefer to have avoided war. But driven into a corner by German aggression they were forced to act. The mutual defence arrangements they entered into were there to contain that aggression, not cause a war. It was hoped, and believed that the threat of general war would curb German aggression. In this they miscalculated. The prospect of general war was not enough to contain german ambition….they decided to risk war and got exactly that. They wre in no way forced to go to war. They elected to do so. They saw it in their national interests, the same as Britain, but in reverse, to risk general war to achieve their aims. To this extent Britain and germany of 1914 were very similar. But there the similarity ends. Whereas british policy was defensive, German intentions were aggressive and violent.

It should be noted that in 1939, faced with exactly the same situation, the allies did not wait. Germany never declared war on France or Britain, indeed, it was the other way round. As an intrsting aside, the only nation that germany gave the courtesy to by declaring war before they started shooting was the US….and oddly enough, this was the only country that they fought that they didn’t really want to go to war with…. 

_Point to almost any hot-spot in the world today and at its root you will find the British Colonial Policy of "divide and conquer"_ 

This statement fails to acknowledge a fundamental truth about the british empire, namely, that at one point it controlled nearly 30% of the worlds land mass directly, and nearly 50% of the worlds population outside of europe and china. For every failure that can be pointed to the british empire there are twice as many successes. For example, all of the worlds successful democracies are based on the British westminster system. Nearly all the worlds successful democracies are of direct british origin. Try and find former colonies that are not of british origin that have not, at some point in their post WWI history failed, you will not find them. Some are democracies for some of the time. Generally their belief and promotion of democratic principals are weak, like Brazil. 

Those nations that have failed did not start before the british in the modern age with any mighty traditions. In the middle east, one of the example you gave, these spheres of influence were people….people who had hated each other for centuries, and wanted nothing better than to kill each other at the first opportunity. In the imperial world of the early 20th century, it made sense to carve up the spoils of war, so long as the nation was not a white european nation, it was morally okay to do that at that time. Moreover, to blame Britain (or france) for this regions instability is ridiculous, to be honest. What britain did, in fact, was to try and give these peoples some modicum of order and justice....albeit British justice, which unfortunately has failed. Is this the fault of Britain. If that was the case, why then are nations that have never been under britains control in just as much of a mess…nations like Libya, Ethiopia, the Phillipines and Indonesia for example. I suspect a convenient vehicle for a spot of limey bashing. 

And compared to more recent US efforts to democratize some of these peoples, British methods are downright peace loving 

Finally, far from adopting devisive measure to divide and conquer, Britain (and France) were attempting to “unite” these peoples under the one administration (within each territory I mean). Most of these peoples had never known or understood the one rule. With the passing of Turkish enslavement of these people, they were given relative freedom under the European administrations, not subjugation. Ask any Armenian what they think of the turks and you will get your answer.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 14, 2011)

I suspect that the wonderful benefits of British Colonial rule and imperialism would be lost on the millions of native peoples who had their homelands taken, borders redrawn, were enslaved, murdered, and made 2nd or 3rd class citizens in their own lands all in the name of making the world England.
But there is a German who, through sheer stubborn blockheadedness fell into every trap and alienated just about every European nation: enter Wilhelm II 
In 1888, Kaiser Wilhelm II became Emperor of Germany, an empire that had been guided by the sure hand of its “Iron Chancellor,” Otto von Bismarck, since 1871. It was clear when Wilhelm took the throne that, although quick witted, he was also emotionally unstable and had a violent temper. Impatient to have his own way in everything no matter how trivial, he chafed at any restrictions. In his eagerness to extend Germany’s power and influence throughout Europe and the rest of the world he embarked on a program of rapid territorial conquest and military expansion that worried his European neighbors. When Bismarck tried to stear him toward a more cautious approach to foreign policy, the young emperor made it clear that he intended doing things his way, and that he was not content to be merely a figurehead for an ambitious chancellor. Wilhelm’s obsession with the armed forces meant that he came under the influence of the Prussian military elite whose advice he sought with alarming regularity. Having been frustrated by his chancellor once too often, Wilhelm asked for, and obtained, Bismarck’s dismissal from office.
With Bismarck’s removal, Wilhelm began to take Germany in a new and dangerous direction. The chancellors he appointed were weak and vacillating, reducing the governments effectiveness, which meant that Germany was now under his personal rule. Wilhelm’s poor grasp of the political world of the late 19th century lead him to make blunder after blunder. 
For example, in 1908 seeking to allay British fears about Germany’s naval build-up, Wilhelm had his views published in a popular British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph: “You English are mad, mad, mad as March Hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?” With these words Wilhelm tried to win over the hearts and minds of the British in what has to be the most inept attempt at international diplomacy ever seen. But worse was to come as he implied that France and Russia had tried to persuade Germany to enter the Boer War to fight with the Boers against Britain. Thus alienating both the French and Russians. Then he went on to declare that the German naval build up was aimed more at Japan than at Britain alienating the Japanese as well. 
Believing that his personal relationships with fellow monarchs were what counted (he was a grandson of Queen Victoria) he allowed a defense treaty with Russia to lapse in 1890, enabling the Russians to forge a treaty with France instead. He maintained his alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, even though it was on a collision course with Russia, an event which might lead to a war which would drag in France and Britain as well, because of the treaties signed between the three nations.
After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb on June 28, 1914, Wilhelm offered his support to Austro-Hungary if it were to take action against the Serbians. As soon as Austria-Hungary declared was on Serbia, the Russians began to mobilize troops along both the Austrian and German borders. Seeing this, and recognizing that since France had not declared itself neutral, it would therefore come into the war on the side of Russia. Military officials in Germany persuaded Wilhelm to sign the mobilization order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan, by which Germany would attack France. Although Wilhelm was worried by the approaching conflict, he vacillated between asking for more time for negotiations and fully supporting his military commanders approach. In the end, he gave the approval for Germany to declare war on Russia on August 1 followed by a declaration of war on Russia’s main ally France on August 3. When Belgium asserted its neutrality, by denying Germany the right to cross its territory, the Germans invaded anyway on August 4. Britain did not have a mutual defense treaty with Belgium. The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed Belgian independence as a collective agreement among several nation except Germany which was not a nation until 1871. Legally the treaty called for a collective, not an individual response. Legalities aside Britain had the excuse it needed and had been looking for and the countries leadership took it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 14, 2011)

"... Revolutionary War - a direct result of British colonial policy"

Yep. Can't have an American revolution without British colonies in America.

"... War of 1812 - direct result of British policy on the high seas and an invasion of the US: What invasion would that be, Mike?

And as for slavery - your comments are supported by the record - but long, long before the Civil War, Americans wrote a declaration of independence and a constitution and bill of rights that all failed to recognize slaves as human beings (men) - so whatever shortcomings British slavers may have had, many Americans more than matched them on their own.

"... The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire." *Imalko* ...do you agree with that assessment? I'd say - if anything - that championing Tito (James Fitzroy MacLean's mission to Yugoslavian partisans) had more of a British "stamp" on it than collusion with the Turks 75 years earlier.

You're stretching, Mike.  

MM


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2011)

saying that britain supported enslavement of even native peoples at the turn of the century is just plain wrong. Sure, there were double standards when it came to treatment of whites and coloured races....but is that any different to any of the other colonial powers of the age? And it is particularly hypocritical to say the Brits supported enslavement, from a person whose country nearly tore itself apart over that very issue, many years after Britain had moved to outlaw such practices, and long after most other western nations had named as the abomination that it was. 

British imperial rule was not a holiday, but compared to its peers, the british burden was light, which is a big reason why, relative to countries like Holland, Spain and France, the transition from colonial rule to self rule was relatively painless. Even in problem areas, such as Malaya, the extent of malcontent was tame compared to that experienced in places like Algeria or Indonesia. The only place where i can think things went horribly wrong was in Palestine, where i will grant you there was a right royal stuff up, and we live with that consequence even today. 

As for saying britain had the excuse it needed, it was not an excuse, it was a legitimate reason. The germans, in their avaricious pursuit of dominance of europe, had invaded a neutral country, that since the time of Napoleon had been an unspoken and unwritten ally of britain. Elements of the Belgian nation had fought under the british flag at waterloo, and ever since, Britain had seen fit to act as protector of the young nation. More to the point, the German action to invade the low countres was done, only to get at France, which the British saw as th main countervailing power to German aggression. The British were not going to stand idly by whilst Germany dismembered the only continental nation in the west with the ability to balance them.

In short, the outbreak of hostilities on the western front was purely the result of German aggression. Britain was only reacting as they said they would, and this was in DEFENCE of allies and friends. Thank god the british are as good as the words they speak. They stood by the friends they had made promises to. As they would again 30 years later.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 15, 2011)

Michael, off this topic a bit but the War of 1812 was started by the US after being pushed, prodded, and backed into a corner by British (and French) policys on the High seas, beginning with an attack on Canada which failed which is why you aren't a USA citizen followed by: On the Mid-Atlantic Coast, British troops landed in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1814, and marched towards Washington. US General William Winder made an attempt to stop the British forces, commanded by General Robert Ross, at Bladensburg. The US troops were badly routed. The city of Washington was evacuated, and the British burned the Capitol and the White House, along with most of nonresidential Washington.

The British pressed onward, and Admiral Cochrane sought to invade Baltimore. General Ross was killed as his forces advanced towards the city, and their movement stalled. Cochrane's forces bombarded Fort McHenry, which guarded Baltimore's harbor, but were unable to take it. This event inspired Francis Scott Key, an American lawyer detained on one of Cochrane's ships, to write the Star-Spangled Banner. Unsuccessful at Baltimore, Cochrane's damaged fleet limped to Jamaica for repairs, and made preparations for an invasion of New Orleans, hoping to cut off American use of the Mississippi River.

By mid 1814, the War of 1812 was turning out to be tougher fighting than either side expected. Britain, caught up in the costly Napoleonic Wars, began to look for a way to extricate itself from its American commitment. In the Belgian city of Ghent, American negotiators (including John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay) met with British diplomats. After considerable bickering, the negotiators signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, officially ending the war. The treaty returned US-Britain relations to the same status as they had been before the war. The US neither gained nor lost any territory. Impressment went unaddressed.

The war was officially over, but news traveled slowly across the Atlantic Ocean. In New Orleans, Cochrane landed the British troops, who were still waiting for their replacement commander for Ross, General Packenham, to arrive from Britain. On January 8, 1815, Andrew Jackson's ragtag army soundly defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Even though this battle had been fought unnecessarily (the treaty was already signed) the US celebrated wildly, manifesting an upsurge in American nationalism.


----------



## imalko (Apr 15, 2011)

parsifal said:


> In short, the outbreak of hostilities on the western front was purely the result of German aggression. Britain was only reacting as they said they would, and this was in DEFENCE of allies and friends. Thank god the british are as good as the words they speak. They stood by the friends they had made promises to. As they would again 30 years later.



I bet the Poles in 1939 thought otherwise...



> "... The former Yugoslavia and its "problems" directly relate to British propping up the disintegrating Ottoman Turkish Empire." Imalko ...do you agree with that assessment? I'd say - if anything - that championing Tito (James Fitzroy MacLean's mission to Yugoslavian partisans) had more of a British "stamp" on it than collusion with the Turks 75 years earlier.



I'm not quite sure what do mean by this. The British acknowledgment of Tito over other "movements" existing in Yugoslavia at that time was guided by purely military reasons. Yes, Tito had his agenda same as others (chetnik's leader Mihailović for example), but partisans were inflicting the greatest damage to the Germans so Churchill supported him despite him being a communist. As simple as that.
Did British "championing" Tito foreshadowed the disintegration of Yugoslavia we witnessed in the nineties? Don't think so. If anything Tito is the one who kept the country together for so long. Without him I doubt that Yugoslavia as a country would exist after WW2. Would that have been better? Honestly don't know. There are some historians in my country which are of the opinion that unique historical chance for permanent solution of "Serbian question" was missed in 1918. Being on the side of the victors in the Great War Serbia had the chance to unite all territories with ethnic Serbian majority into one strong national state leaving the other southern Slavic nations alone. But royal dynasty of Karađorđevićs opted for the creation of greater state of all southern Slavic nations. This resulted in unstable multiethnic state as the Slovenes and Croats were never enthusiastic about it from the outset.

One more note... The British were involved in Yugoslavia long before MacLean's mission in 1943. The coup which overthrow the government in March 1941 after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia signed Tripartite pact with the Axis was inspired and encouraged by the British secret service which was very active in Yugoslavia at that time.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2011)

I don't disagree with what you state, Igor, but there _were_ competing partisan groups in Yugoslavia ( as there were indeed in other occupied countries) and Britain had to make a decision who they were going to arm and support -- hence MacLean's mission. And he reported that the communists were the only effective resistance - and in THAT sense the communists then received British aid and the competing groups were shut out. And under Tito's communism - it is my understanding that the Party was able to reach out to Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Christians, Muslims etc etc.. That structure seemingly did not survive Tito's leadership.

I was NOT BEING SERIOUS when I posted to Mike about British involvement in The US Civil War, Yugoslav devolvement etc. I could not believe Mike missed my sarcasm and took the point seriously.

I have come to the conclusion that Wars of Independence are like loosing your virginity --- your experience (in rebellion) is more (rebellious) than anyone else's -- and the oppressor is more oppressive, brutal and evil than anyone else's. 

The US War of Independence was a fine effort by America - but it was hardly the Warsaw uprising or the rape of NanKing -- although Mike may disagree with me . And I'm always happy to be educated.

Mike ?


MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 16, 2011)

OK Michael, off the topic but if you would like a few examples of the Gentlemanly British dealing with a rebellion of former countrymen:
Consider the British prison hulks where American captives were kept for an excellent example of how they waged war. The British had some mastless prison ships in NY harbor during the war. American prisoners (enlisted men) were stuffed into the hold and not allowed to come up on deck for exercise or fresh air. They had to urinate and defecate over the side and, since the ship was anchored, the foul water was only washed away with the tides. They were given small cast iron pots (1 for every 10 men) to cook whatever rancid meat they were given and it had to be cooked in salt water since they weren't given any fresh water for cooking. And the only salt water they could get was the aforementioned water covered with feces. Occasionally, locals would row out to the ships and donate or sell fresh food to the prisoners. Thousands died under those conditions. Not too gentlemanly for the American captives who starved to death there. 
Then there was Bloody Ban Tareleton a war criminal if there ever was one. That he was popular in Liverpool after the war says more about the people there than it does about Tareleton. Colonel Banastre Tarelton or "Bloody Ban" as he was called – actually commanded a Tory Legion of green-coated American loyalists who were exceptionally brutal. The most famous account was after the Battle of Camden, the massacre at Waxhaws, when Banistre "Bloody Ban" Tarleton had his men slaughtered surrendering American troops. That incident gave rise to the term "Tarleton's Quarter", which meant no quarter at all. There was also a story of a woman down south who was found tied to a tree and her unborn infant had been cut out of her, hung upside down to the tree and a note attached to it saying, "This bastard will never grow up to be a rebel." Tareleton was barely twenty when he killed his first prisoner. 
Don't forget for a second that it was the British who invented the concentration camp, not the Germans. Remember their war of aggression against the Boers?
Cherry Valley was a town in west, central New York which was attacked by Butler’s Rangers and 500 Iroquois and Onondaga Indians who were allied with the British. The British had convinced the Indian tribes that the colonists would take the Indian homelands. The colonists of Cherry Valley were slaughtered and scalped. The slaughter included all residents including all of the women and children. Cherry Valley is where Indians got their reputation for scalping. So it was not the Americans who brought scalping to the American Indians, or brought the Indians into the American Revolution, unleashing that particular horror against the settlers. It was the British, paying their Indian allies by the scalp, with no qualms about who it had belonged to, whether man, woman, or child. How very civilized. I am also reminded that Lord Jeffrey Amherst introduced a nice tweak to frontier fighting: germ warfare via smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians who had offended the Crown. So Americans did attack and kill Indians. However if you really want dead Indians one must look to the sub continent; where of course the British held sway. Ever see the images of Sepoys tied to the mouths of cannons? That is British justice, and they didn't learn that from the Germans or from the Americans
The Hessians were also noted for their lack of compassion to surrendering troops and there are several accounts of them bayoneting Americans asking for quarter. Saying the British behaved like the SS men is entirely backwards – it would be far more appropriate to say that the SS men behaved like the British. Although, even Hitler never came up with a horror like the punishment King George used for those convicted of treason: have you by chance a clue as to just what it means to be hanged, drawn, and quartered?
Realpolitic is a German usage but they learned it from the British, after enduring an uneasy alliance with them during the Napoleonic Wars. For more on that see Peter Hofshroer's two volume classic on the 1815 campaign and see for yourself who started the dynamic that led to two world wars in the next century. 
It should be stated that the SS men would have found no place in Germany had not the British (and French) pursued their abominable Versailles treaty and attendant policies which virtually assured a second world war. Finally, it was the English who brought America into the first war, one in which we had no national interest, but which having involved ourselves, tilted history in a way that haunts us still.
Who settled the slave states? Oh...it was the British and it was they who brought the slaves here in the first place. Slavery was quite as legal in Britain at that time as it was in the US. Yet one never found too many free blacks in Britain or perhaps someone would care to note a painting that shows one, or a book that mentions one? Freeing slaves came much later and certainly not in London – that would have been unseemly. Indeed, in Britain, white men were treated as slaves.
While there were indeed black slaves, there were large numbers of free black men fighting in the revolution it can be readily ascertained that a free black was one of those killed at the Boston massacre. See the early paintings of the battles in the South and at Breeds Hill for contemporary views of free black men at war.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2011)

mikewint said:


> Cherry Valley was a town in west, central New York which was attacked by Butler’s Rangers and 500 Iroquois and Onondaga Indians who were allied with the British. The British had convinced the Indian tribes that the colonists would take the Indian homelands. The colonists of Cherry Valley were slaughtered and scalped. The slaughter included all residents including all of the women and children. Cherry Valley is where Indians got their reputation for scalping. So it was not the Americans who brought scalping to the American Indians, or brought the Indians into the American Revolution, unleashing that particular horror against the settlers. It was the British, paying their Indian allies by the scalp, with no qualms about who it had belonged to, whether man, woman, or child. .


jeez do you think these guys were a little pissed for getting run off their land , my GreatGreat etc Grandfather was a member of Butlers Rangers who were forced off their land by vigilante Rebels and forced to leave , they moved to the Niagara Frontier and took the fight back ( these same "SS" guys banned slavery in 1793).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 16, 2011)

We're about to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. In Toronto - we're going to burn parts of the city and hire official "looters" to reenact what the US troops - a rabble really - did to Muddy York (aka Toronto). Burning Washington was payback.

By 1814 affairs with Napoleon were over and Britain was able to devote all her "attention" on the USA - Ghent came pretty quickly after that. 

Mike, I suggest you visit my thread from 3 months ago on the new British National Anthem - it pretty much addresses all your concerns. Apologies are in order and all that sort of stuff. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/new-english-national-anthem-discuss-28394.html

MM


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2011)

Part I of II


The abolition of slavey in England was a process that took nearly 63 years to complete, yet it stands as a beacon for other emancipation movements across the world, including the liberal movements in the US.

The defeat of slavery was not achieved by the gun, it was actually defeated in the english courts of law. 

"Some of the first court cases to challenge the legality of slavery took place in Scotland. The cases were Montgomery v Sheddan (1756), Spens v Dalrymple (1769), and set the precedent of legal procedure in British courts that would later lead to successful outcomes for the plaintiffs.

The court case of 1769 involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments, but upheld an earlier principal by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.

William Wilberforce later took on the cause of abolition in 1787 after the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in which he led the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. He continued to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

The last known form of enforced servitude of adults (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain at the beginning of the 17th century. But by the 18th century, traders began to import African and Indian and East Asian slaves to London and Edinburgh to work as personal servants. Men who migrated to the North American colonies often took their East Indian slaves or servants with them, as East Indians were documented in colonial records. They were not bought or sold in London, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somersett forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London, Somersett had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law, as there was no legislation for slavery in England.

In his judgment of 22 June 1772 Mansfield declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." Although the exact legal implications of the judgement are actually unclear when analysed by lawyers, it was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England. This judgment emancipated the 10,000-14,000 slaves or possible slaves in England, who were mostly domestic servants. It also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the North American colonies) could not be enforced in England.

The Somersett case became a significant part of the common law of slavery in the English speaking world, and helped launch the movement to abolish slavery, in particular the situation in North America. After reading about the Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved African in Scotland, left his master John Wedderburn. A similar case to Steuart's was brought by Wedderburn in 1776, with the same result: chattel slavery was ruled not to exist under the law of Scotland. Nonetheless, legally mandated, hereditary slavery of Scots in Scotland existed from 1606 until 1799, when colliers and salters were legally emancipated by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain (39 Geo.III. c56). A prior law enacted in 1775 (15 Geo.III. c. 28) was intended to end what the act referred to as "a state of slavery and bondage," but it was ineffectual, necessitating the 1799 act." 

Which leads me back to the point that caused this fraccus within a fraccus in the first place. the claim that you made was that the british were involved in slavery (or enslavement) in the twentieth century. Yet in english law there was no place for slavery since the mid 18th century, and slavery as a concept wa banned at least from 1833. There was subjugation of peoples for colonial reasons, thats for sure, but there has neve been any slavery, at least legally, since 1769. 

it would be wrong to claim that the british were not brutal, of course they were. My own country was born from that abuse. however, to judge britain for events that occurred over 200 years ago by todays standards is a travesty of process. The British abused prisoners, as did just about every other nation. Ever heard of the black hole of calcutta? it makes the treatment of your american rebels look positively benign.

its all true that britain used 'divide and conquer methods to hold control over their vast empire. its true also that concentration camps were used in the boer war, though this is far from the first time they were used. was the boer war a war of aggression? Only if you judge on todays standards. The Boer war was not seen as a war of agression by the british at the time, though once again, if you want to apply todays standards, then yes it is a war of aggression. The rounding up of boer sympathisers into camps is pretty abominable, but once again we are judging the british actions of the time by todays standards. And ther is simply no comparison between what the british did, and the nazi concentration camps, though the results were similar. the british army rounded up people it considered to be supporters of the boers.....which included wives and children, and placed them in unhealthy and unsafe conditions of incarceration. This led to many deaths, and was brutal, but it was never a crime. At the time these people were the enemy, and since there were no treaties or conventions, the british could really have done anything they liked to these people and not have been guilty of any crimes

The development of international laws governing the treatment of prisoners is a complex one, but for the purposes of modern international law it commenced with the first geneva convention 

The First Geneva Convention was a set of laws signed in 1864 governing the treatment and care for the wounded and prisoners of war began when relief activist Henri Dunant witnessed the Battle of Solferino in 1859, fought between French-Piedmontese and Austrian armies in Northern Italy. It did not really cover the treatment of POWs or non-combatants. Dunant published his account _Un Souvenir de Solferino _and through his membership in the Geneva Society for Public Welfare he urged the calling together of an international conference and helped found the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. The conventions of 1864 through representations by the red cross did manage a statement recognizing that it is "primarily the duty and responsibility of a nation to safeguard the health and physical well-being of its own people," there would be a "need for voluntary agencies to supplement… the official agencies charged with these responsibilities in every country." To ensure that its mission was widely accepted it required a body of rules to govern its own activities and those of the involved belligerent parties.

On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva, Switzerland and signed the First Geneva Convention. Germany subsequently acknowledged its obligations to this treaty, brought about by several of its member states signing before the formation of the german state:

This first effort provided only for:

the immunity from capture and destruction of all establishments for the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers, 
the impartial reception and treatment of all combatants, 
the protection of civilians providing aid to the wounded, and 
the recognition of the Red Cross symbol as a means of identifying persons and equipment covered by the agreement.[6] 
Despite its basic mandates it was successful in effecting significant and rapid reforms.

This was the mandated conventions under which the boer war was fought. Britain, in the prosecution of the war largely adhered to those established conventions. where there were apparent breaches such as allegedly occurred with breaker morant, there were severe penalties. morant was shot for apparently executing prisoners without a fair trial. The incarceration of non-combatant and civilians was not covered by this convention 

The hague convention was signed in 1907, and generally followed the experiences in africa. britain was an enthusiastic supporter of this initiative and has generally observed its provisions since that time. germany has selectively applied the provisions. against the russians, it did not observe the provisions during the war (ie WWII). against certain allied pesonnel it also failed to observe its treaty obligations

The second geneva convention was also signed in 1906. But it has little relevance to the issues associated with the boer war. The Second Geneva Convention, for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was first adopted in 1906, after the Russo-Japanese war, but was significantly updated in 1929 and again in 1949. It adapts the main protections of the First Geneva Convention to combat at sea.

upon its adoption Britain more or less adhered to its principals ever since. We will look at germany's observance, or otherwise in a minute.....


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2011)

Part II of II

In 1929, the third geneva convention was signed by alll major powers, except japan, , In its preamble it says "_Recognizing that, in the extreme event of a war, it will be the duty of every Power, to mitigate as far as possible, the inevitable rigours thereof and to alleviate the condition of prisoners of war;
Being desirous of developing the principles which have inspired the international conventions of The Hague, in particular the Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War and the Regulations thereunto annexed",_ 

The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, was first adopted in 1929, but was significantly updated in 1949. It defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. it includes articles for the protection of ones own internal populations, and those of foreign civilian populations. Germany and britain were both signatories of this treaty. britain has observed the provisions of this treaty, more or less (isolated breaches do occur, but these are in breach of the law, and if detected are dealt with by the british justice system). In the case of germany, on the occasions that she has been tested to use it, the germans have pretty universally failed to observe its provisions

During the war the UN more or less imposed the provisions of this treaty even on those nations that had not signed it. this was the principal vehicle that led to the prosecution of many japanese as war criminals. If it had not occurred, the japanese could have claimed immunity because their government was not a signatory to the convention. Since WWII, it doesnt matter if your government signs or doesnt sign...an uindividual is still bound by its provisions, though this doesnt seem to wash with the US military these days. im not quite sure how that works just yet. 

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war. There are currently 194 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this fourth treaty but also including the other three. but as i said, the provisions are applicable to individuals, regardless of the signatory status of your country.

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts. This passed the essntially temporary provision i mentioned easrlier (in the UN charter) into a rather unique situation of 'international common law". 

Now, with that brief framework, whereas i can argiue with a great deal of conviction and substance that the british adhered to nearly all its treaty obligations with regard to the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants, for most of the 20th century, I can make no such claim for a number of other nationalities, most notbaly, you guessed it, germany. Germany has a less than exemplary record in the observance of its treaty obligations except in the period after WWII.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2011)

Some further coments regarding the allegation the british engaged in the slave trade into the 20th century.....

The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. Such a law was bound to be eventually passed, given the increasingly powerful abolitionist movement. The timing might have been connected with the Napoleonic Wars raging at the time. At a time when Napoleon took the retrograde decision to revive slavery which had been abolished during the French Revolution and to send his troops to re-enslave the people of Haiti and the other French Caribbean possessions, the British prohibition of the slave trade gave the British Empire the high moral ground.

british laws were backed by british action. The act's intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the trade continued and captains in danger of being caught by the Royal Navy would often throw slaves into the sea to reduce the fine. In 1827, Britain declared that participation in the slave trade was piracy and punishable by death. Between 1808 and 1860, the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers. hardly the actions of a regime that believed in and supported slavery......

After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement again became active, this time campaigning against the institution of slavery itself. In 1823 the first Anti-Slavery Society in the world was founded in Britain. Many of the campaigners were those who had previously campaigned against the slave trade. Sam Sharpe contributed to the abolition of slavery with his Christmas rebellion in 1831.

On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent, which paved the way for the abolition of slavery within the British Empire and its colonies. On 1 August 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840, six years later.

On 1 August 1834, an unarmed group of mainly elderly Negroes being addressed by the Governor at Government House in Port of Spain, Trinidad, about the new laws, began chanting: "Pas de six ans. Point de six ans" ("Not six years. No six years"), drowning out the voice of the Governor. Peaceful protests continued until a resolution to abolish apprenticeship was passed and de facto freedom was achieved. Full emancipation for all was legally granted ahead of schedule on 1 August 1838, making Trinidad the first British colony with slaves to completely abolish slavery. The government set aside £20 million to cover compensation of slave owners across the Empire, but the former slaves received no compensation or reparations. hardly evidence of a regime that supported slavery. far from it, which is what makes this particular claim all the more insulting and galling. far from promoting slavey, the british establishment was at the cutting edge to outlaw it and stamp it out, and made considerable efforts to achieve just that.

and while this was happening what were other nations doing? In the US, the issue was so entrenched in some states that a war needed to be fought, at least in part, to prise this abominable practice from their grasp. and this was late in the process.....1865


For the record, incidentally, whilst british ships often provided the ships in the 18th century for the movem,ent of slaves, the demand for slaves in the deep south of the US came from french and to a lesser extent spanish inspired practices. St Louis, new orleans, the word 'missisippi' are all French concepts if i am not mistaken 


In 1839, a successor organization to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries and also to pressure the government to help enforce the suppression of the slave trade by declaring slave traders pirates and pursuing them. This organization continues today as Anti-Slavery International.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 17, 2011)

Parsifal, the issue of slavery is a very moot point and I will readily and totally agree with you and anyone else that on that issue the British were a shinning star to the rest of the world. However, the American Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war blow at the south hoping in insight a slave rebellion. Our civil war was caused by five major problems:
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2011)

I doubt that the reasons for the American civil war have a lot to do with the causes of WWI, though i will say that your explanation as to its causes are uniquely american in their ability to deflect the focus away to anything other than the root cause of the war. 

The reason I responded to the british slavery issue was because it was raised by yourself, i think as an indirect reference to british policy approaches. Broadly speaking, you seemed to be saying britain was an ammoral state that could not be trusted and by reason of its unscrupulous ways forced germany to take an aggressive stance. One of the reasons you seemed to put forward for that behaviour was that the british wanted to enslave the world. You did not further clarify that statement to say whether you meant direct slavery as an issue, or more the colonial subjugation of peoples.

It appears that you are prepared to concede that britiain was not engaged in slavery, and therfore this longer issue that the british government was unscrupulous to that extent must now fall away. You are silent on the point that, far from promoting slavery, britain was in fact at the forefront of suppressing its existence. If i am to understand you correctly, your remaining issue is that britain wanted war with germany, to solve the 'issue" and contrived to contain germany by a series of alliances to contain them, and as a second strand in your position, used divide and conquer methods in the lead up to WWI and as a general tool in its colonial dealings.

These are the basic facts that we can agree on. I agree that britain used a series of ententes and alliances to contain germany which I think britain saw as a threat. I agree that divide and conquer was a tool used by the british in its dealings with its colonial interests and in its dealings with other major powers. however i do not agree that these were major causes of WWI, except if one accepts that germany should have been allowed to dominate europe and subjugate other white european nations. The issue of whether british colonial methods used divide and conquer tactics, is not i think directly relevant to causes of the war, except in this rather generalised and unspecific accusation that the british were a devious bunch who were prepared to use unscrupulous means to get their way. Youve presented some rathe questionable examples to support your notion that britain is responsible for all (or most) of the divisions in the world today, because of its colonial policies. It does not seem to enter into your logic processes that Britains previous colonial holdings had the least painful transition to self rule of any of the colonial empires, that its former possessions have the best record of democratization in the world, of any group of nations with a common heritage, or that the obvious instability that exists in some nations might have something to do with their own non-british pasts, or that the british empire at one time constituted 30% of the worlds land area and 50% of its peoples (outside europe and china), and therefore it is logical that a lot of todays problems are likley to occur within its former territories simply as a result of size....... 

its the conclusion you draw, that are perhaps the most fantastic and outrageous of all. because britain moved to contain germany, and germany chose to break out of that cordon using aggressive war a means to do that, it was somehow britains fault?? to use American slang.... Go figure????????? 

My position on this is that britain did indeed place a cordon around germany, but for good reasons. britain was acting in her national self interest when doing this, which any nation, even today, has the right to do. There were three reasons that i think were direct causes to this british reaction. 


The first was the realization that germany was a major economic threat to britain. 

The second reason was that germany saw fit to directly challenge British intersts by building a blue water navy that could threaten british control of the european seas, and indeed the safety and security of the british isles itself. 

The third reason was that germany had a proven track record of acting subversivly against british interests, as evidenced by them selling arms to the boers and other peoples that cost the british many lives. Britain was treating germany in much the same way as the US dealt with the soviets in the Cold war, and the germans reacted in much the same way, except they were unscrupulous enough to actually pull the trigger. 

Whilst today nations might form trading blocks, or provide subsidies to protect economic interests, britain sought to contain german influence by direct economic ties with other nations. economic strength is the basis for military power, Military power can be abused. britain feared that. And therefore took steps to try and contain its unbridled use. they thought they could contain the germans by surrounding them with a series of hostile alliances. they pursued the same strategy in the lead up to WWII 9and a someone rightly pointed out, this cost the poles dearly, although they failed to realize this would have happened to Poland with or without british gurantees). They under-estimated the germans. Howeve, did the britsh act ammorally or aggressively by seeking to contain the germans, no not in the slightest. they were acting within the law, and did not break any international codes or understandings. Did germany break any rules, cross any treaty obligations or act ammorally when they invaded another country. you bet they did. 

Which leads to the conclusions that we need to draw from all of this. your position, put into its crudest terms, is that Britain was most responsible for the war because it placed germany in an impossible position. My position is that is really just a load of bollocks...britain acted in her own national self interest, which she was allowed to do. She acted within the law, and within accepted moral standards of the day. She under-estimated the aggression of the german state, and Britain, as well as the rest of the world, paid a heavy price for that.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2011)

imalko said:


> I bet the Poles in 1939 thought otherwise...


 
Hi igor

britains gurantee to poland was not the course of polish suffering. In 1939, Poland was a doomed state, whether they entered into agreement with the british or not. Germany was the instigator of polish suffering, not the british. The fact that Britain or the poles could not stop Poland being overrun is a different matter, but hardly constitutes a breach of trust. The british guranteed Polish sovereignty, but failed to deliver, but not for reasons of bad faith, it was simply a case of making promises they could not keep. same thing happened in 1944, with the Soviets. Churchill did his best to try and save something of the Polish state, and when the warsaw uprising occurred, made valiant attempts to lend assistance. But without Soviet assistance the british were essentially powerless.

What else would you have liked them to do beyond what they already attempted. they gave assurances rashly, but in good faith, but circumstances defeated them. I fail to see how else they could have assisted without placing their own national security at risk. As it was, going to war on behalf of poland seems risk enough, dont you think?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 18, 2011)

Ah - back on track. Thanks, Parsifal. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Apr 18, 2011)

Actually I agree with you Parsifal, I was merely pointing out that the Poles must have felt betrayed in 1939 that's all. I doubt the British could have done more. Though one can't but ask himself what would have happened if French and the British pressed for the offensive over the border in fall of 1939 while bulk of the Wehrmacht was still engaged in Poland...

By the way, this is a thread about WW1 right? Seems like we all stranded heavily off topic (myself included of course).


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2011)

Yes, we are drifting off topic, but still an interesting discussion....its robust debate, but still interesting IMO. I'm okay with it if the other participants are too....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2011)

I am okay with it, as long as it remains civil (which thankfully it has so far...).


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2011)

It will be fine. mike and myself are mature enough to get through a tussle like this. as to more refrences about "civil" surely not more discussion about that "war" again???


----------



## mikewint (Apr 18, 2011)

Parsifal, most assuredly sir, as I highly respect you and your opinions though they be different than mine. We can and have reached agreement on somethings and will most likely have to agree to disagree on others. But is that not the essence of a Forum? What a wonderful world this is when two products of the British Penal system (slap the criminals on a boat with 3rd rate tools and no farming experience and ship them half way around the world to a hostile and inhospitable land, and of course, wish them godspeed) can look at the same data and come up with two totally different explanations. I do apologize for the off topic detours but I was asked and so responded in kind. OK, back on topic. I believe that for the roots of WWI we need to look at the events of 1815 and come forward:
The Congress of Vienna was a conference of ambassadors of European states chaired by Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, and held in Vienna from September, 1814 to June, 1815. The objective of the Congress was to settle the many issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. This objective resulted in the redrawing of the continent's political map, establishing the boundaries of France, Napoleon's Duchy of Warsaw, the Netherlands, the states of the Rhine, the German province of Saxony, and various Italian territories, and the creation of spheres of influence through which Austria, Britain, France and Russia brokered local and regional problems.
The possibility of German unification (and indeed Italian unification) challenged the fundamental precepts of balance laid out in 1815; unification of these groups of states would overturn the principles of overlapping spheres of influence. Prince Klemens von Metternich (German-Austrian), Robert Stewart Viscount Castlereagh (British Foreign Secretary) and Tsar Alexander (and his foreign secretary Count Karl Nesselrode), who were the principal architects of this convention, had conceived of and organized a Europe (and indeed a world) balanced by and guaranteed by four powers: Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria. Each power had its geographic sphere of influence; for France, this sphere included the Iberian peninsula and shared influence in the Italian states; for the Russians, the eastern regions of Central Europe, and balancing influence in the Balkans; for the Austrians, this sphere included much of the Central European territories of the old Reich (Holy Roman Empire); and for the British, the rest of the world, especially the seas.
The system of spheres of influence in Europe depended upon the fragmentation of the German and Italian states, not their consolidation. Consequently, a German nation united under one banner presented significant problems for the four major powers. Castlereagh’s Congress system of solving Continental problems initially worked very well but by 1822 it had broken down due to irreconcilable differences between the major powers.
The Crimean War of 1854–55 and the Italian War of 1859 disrupted relations among Great Britain, France, Austria and Russia. In the aftermath of this disarray, the convergence of von Moltke's operational redesign, von Roon and Wilhelm's restructuring of the army, and Bismarck's diplomacy influenced the restructuring of the European balance of power. Their combined agendas established Prussia as the leading German power through a combination of foreign diplomatic triumphs, backed up by the possible use of Prussian military might, and internal conservatism tempered with pragmatism: Realpolitik.
Bismarck expressed the essence of Realpolitik in his subsequently famous "Blood and Iron" speech to the Budget Committee of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies on 30 September 1862, shortly after he became Minister President: "The great questions of the time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood." Bismarck's words, "iron and blood" (or "blood and iron", as often attributed), have been variously misquoted or misappropriated as evidence of German lust for blood and power. First, his speech, and the phrase, "the great questions of time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions", is often interpreted as a repudiation of the political process, a repudiation that Bismarck did not himself advocate. Second, his emphasis on blood and iron did not imply simply the unrivaled military might of the Prussian army, but rather two important aspects: first, the ability of the assorted German states to produce the iron (and the related war materials) and second, the willingness to use them if, and when, necessary.
Bismarck faced two major problems (1) Austrian control of the German Confederation (the King of Britain was a member until 1837) as established in Vienna in 1815 by Metternich to serve as a buffer between Austria and Prussia and (2) unite all the disparate German states into a unified whole.
(1) The Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The pretext for precipitating the conflict was found in the dispute between Prussia and Austria over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein. When Austria brought the dispute before the German diet and also decided to convene the Holstein diet, Prussia, declaring that the Gastein Convention had thereby been nullified, invaded Holstein. When the German diet responded by voting for a partial mobilization against Prussia, Bismarck declared that the German Confederation was ended. After the Battle of Koniggratz where the Austrian death toll was 7 times that of the Prussians, the Austrians rapidly sued for peace. In order to forestall intervention by France or Russia, Bismarck pushed King William I to make peace with the Austrians rapidly, rather than continue the war in hopes of further gains. The Austrians accepted mediation from France's Napoleon III. The Peace of Prague on August 23, 1866 resulted in the dissolution of the German Confederation, Prussian annexation of many of Austria’s former allies, and the permanent exclusion of Austria from German affairs. This left Prussia free to form the North German Confederation the next year, incorporating all the German states north of the Main River.
(2) Bismarck next needed a Casus Belli to unite all the German states remaining against a common foe. The conflict that presented itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two nations, which finally came to a head over the issue of a Hohenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne, following the deposition of Isabella II in 1868. The public release of the Ems Dispatch, which played up alleged insults between the Prussian king and the French ambassador, inflamed public opinion on both sides. France mobilized, and on 19 July declared war on Prussia only, but the other German states quickly joined on Prussia's side. It soon became evident that the Prussian and German forces were superior, due in part to their efficient use of railways and the better Krupp steel artillery. Prussia had the fourth densest rail network in the world. A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France culminated in the Battle of Sedan, at which Napoleon III was captured with his whole army on 2 September. Yet this did not end the war, as the Third Republic was declared in Paris on 4 September 1870, and French resistance continued under the Government of National Defense and later Adolphe Thiers.
Over a five-month campaign, the German armies defeated the newly recruited French armies in a series of battles fought across northern France. Following a prolonged siege, Paris fell on 28 January 1871. The siege is also notable for the first use of anti-aircraft artillery, a Krupp piece built specifically to shoot down the hot air balloons being used by the French as couriers. Ten days earlier, the German states had proclaimed their union under the Prussian king, uniting Germany as a nation-state, the German Empire. The final Treaty of Frankfurt was signed 10 May 1871.
My point in all this is that the newly unified German nation had been for almost 100 years, deliberately kept weak and fragmented by the actions and policies of Britain, France and Russia. After finally emerging as a unified nation they found themselves hemmed in by interlocking treaties designed to keep them a second class nation and maintain Britain as the worlds #1 power. A brighter, more diplomatically astute leader could had gradually overcome these limitation but alas Wilhelm II was none of these and he took the bait and initiated WWI. Of this simple fact there can be no debate but the British-French-Russian hands are hardly clean and clearly wanted this war to occur. To all parties credit, none had envisioned the TYPE of war that would result and the horrible loss of life that would occur. Most had thought the war would be settled by Christmas.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2011)

hi mike

Most of your immediate description of the congress of vienna, i agree with. however I think it important to understand the context of this congress, and why it took on the form that it did.

The congress of vienna was essentially a conference by the great powers of europe, following the defeat of napoleon to decide what to do with the Confederation of the Rhine States. This confederation was formed in 1806 following napoleons victory at austerlitz over prussia and austria, and saw a huge realignment of german territory fall under french control. it lasted until 1813, following the defeat of napoleon in russia. It confered huge power on napoleon, giving access to vast resources and manpower, and was a key reason why the napoleonic wars lasted for so long. these german states had proven weak individually and fairly easily dominated and exploited by the great powers that surrounded them. Whoever controlled these central European states held a clear advantage, positionally, economically, and manpower wise over any of the other states in europe. Napoleon had demonstrated this in spades in the recent napoleonic wars. Much of the focus of the campaigning from 1805-15 had been about maintaing or wresting control of this region from each of the states involved. moreover the strategic importance of the german states was not lost on any of them.

At the conclusion of the Napoloeonic wars (in 1814, not including the last 100 days in 1815), the victorious great powers decided to dissolve the redundant Holy Roman Empire, permit the expanded german states of the confederation to continue their existence 9many of the smaller duchies had been swallowed by the larger members of the confederation) and to declare the entire region independant , and in todays terms reach agreement that the region was essentially non-aligned. The region was essentially akin to a 19th century nuclear weapon, it conferred great power on whosoever controlled it, but also conferred great suffering on everyone, including the party that used it. in typical age of reason logic, these powers decided that if no single nation could be trusted with this region, then no-one should have it.

Keeping the german non-aligned was aprgmatic solution to a Napoleonic problem. the reason that in subsequent years, as Prussia through its various statesmen began to erode that neutrality and gradually pull these states into its orbit, was seen with both envy and fear by the other surrounding states. The vienna accords gave peace to Europe for a long period of time. when those accords were breached by Prussia, the long road to war began again. The new state of germany was seen by many as the prussian exploiting latent german nationalism for their own ends. In the end, it was Prussia who finished controlling the nuclear weapon that was Germany. this led to wars with Denmark, France and Austria, all of which were won by the Prussians, ending in unification of the german states in 1870.

Not as sure about the creation of the italian state, but i do know that for many years it was fought over by both france and austria. My guess is that Italian nationalism has a lot to do with the local population getting tired of being constantly fought over like a piece of meat.

Britain had some parts to play in all of this, but really was not a major player in the ebb and flow of European politics. So long as no single european power could lay claim to dominance of the continent, and so long as no european Power could mount an effective challenge to british naval supremacy, the british were content to let each of them squabble with the others. whilst Europe bickered amongst itself, Britain could dominate world trade, expand its colonial possessions and generally sit fairly pretty at the top of the heap, not quite in the middle of it all, but well placed to profit handsomely nonetheless. In the beginning the rise of the new german state was not viewed with much alarm....bismarck was an able statesman who knew how to keep the british in their glorious state of slumber. gradually, however the emerganece of the german state as an ecomic powerhouse, the rise of Germany as a rival naval plower, and her bid for empire, as well as her constant meddling in british colonial affairs made the british take notice and react. by 1895, Germany was seen as the principal rival to british supremacy, and a definite possibility to dominate europe. The british realized that something had to be done, and hence the reaction that we have previously talked about.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 19, 2011)

"... bismarck was an able statesman who knew how to keep the british in their glorious state of slumber. gradually, however ....."

Dropping the pilot ... the Kaiser dismisses Mr. B.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 19, 2011)

We are in about 90% agreement maybe more and Michael brought in another 5% and we are back to what I stated earlier about Wilhelm II and his disastrous control of Germany. With Bismarck in control WWI would never have occurred. Local/national wars like the Austro-Prussian or even like the Franco-Prussian but nothing like the global WWI. Additionally continental peace was purchased at the price of German and Italian peoples not being allowed to have a nation of their own. Also, as stated above, Castlereagh’s Congress system for solving Continental problems initially worked very well but by 1822 it had broken down due to irreconcilable differences between the major powers. So by 1822 the four major powers themselves had begun to erode the peace.
In my view, the four major powers had no right to unilaterally decide the fate of the Germans and Italians nor to deny them what everyone else had, a nation. Repressing that urge causes it to fester and swell until it finally bursts. I personally have always prayed to be saved from those who wish to do me well _*no matter what I want *_
Parsifal, to answer your question above:
The Third Italian War of Independence was a conflict which paralleled the Austro-Prussian War, and was fought between the Kingdom of Italy and the Austrian Empire.
Victor Emmanuel II of Savoy had been crowned King of Italy on March 17, 1861, his reign did not control Venetia and Lazio. The situation of the Irredente (literally meaning un-redeemed) created an unceasing state of tension for the inner politics of the newly created Kingdom, as well as being a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The growing divergences between Austria and the growing Prussia's predominance in Germany turned into an open war in 1866, offering Italy an occasion to regain Venetia. On April 8, 1866 the Italian government signed a military alliance with Prussia, through the mediation of Napoleon III of France. Italian armies, led by general Alfonso La Marmora, were to engage the Austrians on the southern front. Simultaneously, taking advantage of their naval superiority, the Italians threatened the Dalmatian coast, forcing Austria to move part of its forces there from the central European front.
Prussian peace with Austria forced the Italian government to seek an armistice with Austria, on August 12.
The ceasing of hostilities was marked by the Armistice of Cormons signed on August 12, followed by the Treaty of Vienna of October 3, 1866.
The terms included the cession of Venetia (with Mantua and western Friuli) to France (which ceded it to Italy) and of the Iron Crown (worn by the old Lombard Kings of Italy and by the Holy Roman Emperors, as well as by Napoleon Bonaparte himself).
The Redente ("Redemeed") lands were annexed to Italy through a plebiscite held on October 21 and 22 of 1866.
This left only Rome and its Patrimony of St Peter (now Lazio) outside the Kingdom of Italy, until the "Capture of Rome" in September 1870 and the subsequent plebiscite approving its unification with the rest of Italy.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2011)

I dont think the great powers in the terms of reference that could be reasonably applied to post napoleonic european politics denied the german states anything. The concept of a unified german state did not exist in 1815, there was no such thing as German nationalism (at least not as a popular movement, though there were signs of it discernible from the shared napoloeonic experience, albeit under french dominance).... indeed the partial process of unification that had occurred under the Confederation (whereby larger German states had assimilated smaller ones) was allowed to stand. However, far from either allowing one nation to control this conglomeration of non-aligned states or repressing the desires of this region as they existed at that time, the great powers simply agreed to treat this area as independant, and under the control of no-one. That is not denying the "germans" anything. 

As the tide of nationalism began to develop, Prussia (which is not Germany, and at that time could not legitimately claim leadership of the independant German states) by every turn was able to expoloit this rising national movement. I believe, they, more than any of the other states exploited the independant german states to their own advantage. The other states, whilst acting in their own self interest, were not reacting to rising german nationalism as such, rather its exploitation by one of the four post napoleonic great powers. As far as I am aware, there was never any attempt by anyone to suppress German nationalism, merely a resistance to Prussia....an outside power.... exploiting this phenomena to their own advantage. Even though Prussia was resisted the focus of its intrigues were not suppressed, (though the later machinations of the french may not entirely fit that cosy picture).

The model of diplomatic spheres of influence resulting from the Congress of Vienna in 1814–15 after the Napoleonic Wars endorsed Austrian dominance in Central Europe. However, the negotiators at Vienna took no account of Prussia's growing strength within and among the German states, failing to foresee that Prussia would challenge Austria for leadership within the German states. This German dualism presented two solutions to the problem of unification: the small Germany solution (Germany without Austria), or greater Germany solution (Germany with Austria).

Historians debate whether or not Otto von Bismarck had a master plan to expand the North German Confederation of 1866 to include the remaining independent German states into a single entity, or whether he simply sought to expand the power of the Kingdom of Prussia. They conclude that factors in addition to the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik led a collection of early modern polities to reorganize political, economic, military and diplomatic relationships in the 19th century. Reaction to Danish and French nationalism provided reason detre for expressions of German unity under prussian control. Military successes—especially Prussian ones—in three regional wars generated enthusiasm and pride that Prussia could harness to promote unification. This experience echoed the memory of mutual accomplishment in the Napoleonic Wars, particularly in the War of Liberation of 1813–14. By establishing a Germany without Austria, the political and administrative unification in 1871 at least temporarily solved the problem of dualism. Again, however, it was not a resistance to latent and rising german nationalism, merely a resistance to Prussian domination of that phenomena, and a protection of their various self interests. that is a fundamentally different juxtaposition to these powers preventing the development of german nationalism, in the sense of not allowing them the right of self determination. it merely denied them the right of self determination at the expense of the dissolution of their own national identities, or for the direct gain of the paria state prussia


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 19, 2011)

The raw seeds of WW1 are in 1870 - the Franco Prussian War. Total French humiliation - The Emperor was captured. Revenge for France poisoned all relationships after that. The neighborhood had changed - France didn't.

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 20, 2011)

Parsifal, Perhaps I am again off topic but I can not believe that the Four Powers had any altruistic intent toward the various 37 German states, France in particular did everything possible to keep the Germans from uniting into their own Nation. Today we term this Self-Determination.
Self determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. 
Pan-Germanism's origins began in the early 19th century following the Napoleonic Wars. The wars launched a new movement that was born in France itself during the French Revolution, Nationalism. Nationalism during the 19th century threatened the old aristocratic regimes. Many ethnic groups of Central and Eastern Europe had been divided for centuries, ruled over by the old Monarchies of the Romanovs and the Habsburgs. Germans, for the most part, had been a loose and disunited people since the Reformation when the Holy Roman Empire was shattered into a patchwork of states. The new German nationalists, mostly young reformers such as Johann Tillmann of East Prussia, sought to unite all the German-speaking and ethnic-German (Volksdeutsche) people.
The German question was a debate in the 19th century over the best way to achieve the Unification of Germany. From 1815–1871, 37 independent German-speaking states existed. The Großdeutsche Lösung ("Greater German solution") favored unifying all German-speaking peoples under one state, and was favored by the Austrian Empire and its supporters. The Kleindeutsche Lösung ("Lesser German solution") sought only to unify the northern German states and did not include Austria; this proposal was favored by the Kingdom of Prussia. The solutions are also referred to by the states they would create, Kleindeutschland and Großdeutschland ("Lesser Germany" and "Greater Germany"). Both movements were part of a growing German nationalism. The movements also drew upon similar efforts to create a unified nation-state of people who shared a common language in the era, such as the Unification of Italy by the House of Savoy or the Serbian revolution for independence.
By the 1860s the Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Empire were the two most powerful nations dominated by German-speaking elites. Both sought to expand their influence and territory. The Austrian Empire — like the German Empire — was a multi-ethnic state, but German-speaking people there did not have an absolute numerical majority; the creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was one result of the growing nationalism of other ethnicities especially the Hungarians. Even some Austrians themselves began to resent their own diverse Empire. Identifying themselves as descendants of the Bavarians, who had conquered and expanded into the region, many Western Austrians supported a separation from the Habsburg Empire and unity with the new German Empire. There was also a rejection of Roman Catholicism with the Away from Rome! movement calling for German speakers to identify with Lutheran or Old Catholic churches. 
Prussia under Otto von Bismarck would ride on the coat-tails of nationalism to unite all of modern-day Germany. The German Empire ("Second Reich") was created in 1871 following the proclamation of Wilhelm I as head of a union of German-speaking states. Thus the debate was settled in favor of the Kleindeutsche Lösung with Protestant Prussia becoming the dominant power of the new state, and Austria-Hungary remaining a separate polity. Wilhelm I did indeed disregard millions of its non-German subjects who desired self-determination from German rule. On the other hand, German-speakers living outside the new Empire preferred living under its rule or in an ethnically homogeneous environment, but this wish clashed with the opposing wishes of other ethnicities. Consequentially regions like Austria and Bohemia witnessed nationalistic controversies for decades. 
That the militaristic Prussia formed the new nation is a direct result of German self-determination being blocked by the Four Powers. Thus the Four Powers created, inadvertently, that which they most wanted to avoid


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2011)

I agree that ther was no altruistic approach by the great powers following Napoleon. It was a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem for them. The german confederation during Napoleons reign (at least after 1806, after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire) was not a single united entity, it was a collection of divided states, many of them opposed to each other, and not thinking as a single entity. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the smaller Duchies were taken over, absorbed, even conquered by some of the larger entities during the time of Napoleon. Being so divided made them an easy target for manipulation, but the latent strength of this region, in terms of economic and manpower potential, as well as its central location in Europe, made it crucial for any power wishing to dominate the rest of Europe. This is precisely what Napoleon did. He dominated and controlled the region, which enabled him to use the resources of the region in his wars of conquest. A good proportion of the Ententes campaigning was about wresting control of that region from him. 

Eventually, of course Napoleon lost control of the region, brought about in no small measure by the wars of liberation against him in 1813-14. This was the first faint stirrings of pangerman nationalism...the first time the region began to think of itself collectively.

The question facing the great powers after Napoleon was what to do with the region. If any one nation was able to control this region in the same way as Napoleon had, then these other states that were not controlling the region were in deep trouble....again. The fact that the states might one day unite, had not been considered, it was not opposed, because at the time of the Council of Vienna,. and its immediate aftermath, German unification was non-existent in their eyes.

The struggles of the next 50 years that ultimately led to the formation of the German state, was not a resistance to german nationalism per se. It was a resistance to try and prevent the region being domninated by another outside power. Chiefly, it was a contest between Prussia and Austria, but there were others. Prussia was better placed to exploit its position, geography, language, economic ties, common religion were all factors that led to the prussian dominance of the emerging German state.

Later however the concept of Pan Germanic aspiration began to encroach onto the direct national intersts of its neighbours. The Germans toyed with the idea of the greater germany which would have involved the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian empire. It also involved encroachment and expansion of the german state into regions that were not exclusively German....such as Schleswig Holstein, and Alsace Lorraine. There were other areas, that were never really disputed, but if the new Germany had believed they could get away with it, they would have jumped at the chance of absorbing these areas....Some areas of Holland and Belgium for example, some areas as far away as Rumania were also at risk under that logic. This brings us full circle to where we started. Pan germanism at some point ceases to be a nationalist movement, and starts to be a vehicle for foreign conquest. Those areas in Ruthenia, for example, even though populated by ethnic germans, never ever thought of themselves as german, until they were told as such. At some point a process of national liberation ceases to be that, and becomes a process of foreign conquest. Exactly where that point was reached is open to debate, but it occurred sometime between 1871 and 1914. Certainlyamongst most scholars, there is no serious debate that the invasions of 1914, were anything other than wars of aggression by the Germans to secure those long held aspirations. The peoples they did manage to overrun were not crying out for German liberation, in fact German treatment of those "liberated" peoples (in Belgium mostly), was about as brutal as its gets.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 20, 2011)

Again Sir we are in 90% agreement, there are so many "what if's" In any movement the strong will rise to the top and Prussia rose to the point where it was able to challange Austria who was faltering as all of its ethnic component were coming apart. The eventual Kleindeutsche Lösung that resulted would have been a much different Germany had Fredrick III lived. Although celebrated as a young man for his leadership and successes during the Second Schleswig, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, he nevertheless professed a hatred of warfare and was praised by friends and enemies alike for his humane conduct. Frederick married Princess Victoria, eldest daughter of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. The couple were well matched; their shared liberal ideology led them to seek greater representation for commoners in the government. Frederick, in spite of his conservative militaristic family background, had developed liberal tendencies as a result of his ties with Britain and his studies at the University of Bonn. As the Crown Prince, he often opposed the conservative Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, particularly in speaking out against Bismarck's policy to unite Germany through force and in urging for the power of the position of Chancellor to be curbed. Liberals in both Germany and Britain hoped that as emperor, Frederick III would move to liberalize the German Empire. Frederick and Victoria were great admirers of the Prince Consort of the United Kingdom, Victoria's father. They planned to rule as consorts, like Albert and Queen Victoria, and to reform the fatal flaws in the executive branch that Bismarck had created for himself. The office of Chancellor, responsible to the Emperor, would be replaced with a British-style cabinet, with ministers responsible to the Reichstag. Government policy would be based on the consensus of the cabinet. Frederick "described the Imperial Constitution as ingeniously contrived chaos." However, his illness prevented him from effectively establishing policies and measures to achieve this, and such moves as he was able to make were later abandoned by his son and successor, William II.
Wilhelm II also might have been a much different person had his birth been less traumatic. A traumatic breech birth left him with a withered left arm due to Erb's palsy, which he tried with some success to conceal. In many photos he carries a pair of white gloves in his left hand to make the arm seem longer, holds his left hand with his right, or has his crippled arm on the hilt of a sword or holding a cane to give the effect of a useful limb posed at a dignified angle. Biographers including Miranda Carter have suggested that this disability affected his emotional development. 
When Wilhelm was in his early twenties, Bismarck tried to separate him from his liberal parents with some success. Bismarck planned to use the young prince as a weapon against his parents in order to retain his own political dominance. Wilhelm thus developed a dysfunctional relationship with his parents, but especially with his English mother. In an outburst in April 1889, which the Empress Victoria conveyed in a letter to her mother, Queen Victoria, Wilhelm angrily implied that “an English doctor killed my father, and an English doctor crippled my arm – which is the fault of my mother” who allowed no German physicians to attend to herself or her immediate family.
So as I had stated earlier lots of blame to go around and lots of "what if's" My personal feelings are a 60-40 split with Germany (Wilhelm II actually) getting the 60%


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 21, 2011)

"... In an outburst in April 1889, which the Empress Victoria conveyed in a letter to her mother, Queen Victoria, Wilhelm angrily implied that “an English doctor killed my father, and an English doctor crippled my arm – which is the fault of my mother” who allowed no German physicians to attend to herself or her immediate family.

So as I had stated earlier lots of *blame *to go around .....

Just like King George VI was right to "blame" his brutish father and Nazi brother for his stutter, or FDR to "blame" God for his polio.

Mike - so what is your view of British doctors and their role in the origins of WWI?

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 21, 2011)

Michael, I have none. that was a quote from Wilhelm II. Included to show his mind set which was very much a causative agent of the war. Wilhelm did indeed START WWI. I never disputed that. My point has always been that ALL the participants share some blame for the war. Wilhelm II was groomed by Bismarck but eventually got out of his control to the point of starting a total world war. Bismarck would have also probably gone to war but I think it would have been kept in check, more like the earlier Franco-Prussian war.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 21, 2011)

"... that was a quote from Wilhelm II. Included to show his mind set which was very much a causative agent of the war. "

I caught that, Mike. The point I was making was that when you say "plenty of blame to go around" I think you are passing judgement on an event(s) where judgement is impossible.

You say: "ALL the participants share some blame for the war". By that argument, all participants in an autombile crash share some blame, prey as well as predators share some "blame" for eating or being eaten, etc. etc.

I know lots of people talk about blame. Victim is another popular concept, these days. But LIFE (and by association all life events) isn't about BLAME, or guilt or victimhood. Life is about survival, and prospering. Germany arrived 'late' in Europe as a unified nation. Germany wanted to thrive and prosper and was willing to use aggression to achieve its ends. At first it worked - then it didn't - and Germany was punished. "Blaming" is not part of that scenario.

I pulled the Kaiser's British doctors quote that you used because you have written on this thread already how Britain is at the root of most of the world's troubles. You know by now I'm not buying that. 

MM


----------



## renrich (Apr 21, 2011)

Early in this discussion which, incidently I started, I mentioned that if the US had not entered WW1 in 1917, the Allies would have likely made peace with Germany in Spring of 1917, with no Russian Revolution, no breakdown of Italy into Fascism and no Treaty of Versailles to enthrone Nazism. In fact, the view that Europe would be better off without US intervention, was supported by Ramsay McDonald, leader of the Labor Party in Britain and was also expressed after the fact by Churchill in a statement to the New York Enquirer in 1936. One wonders why the Kaiser would have initiated unrestricted submarine warfare when he knew that the US was ticklish about that and what simpleton thought up the harebrained idea of getting Mexico into the war against the US, ( the Zimmerman telegram.) Saying that an invasion of the US by Mexico would get them back land lost during the 1846-48 war, including Texas, shows how little Europeans understood about the US in general and Texas in particular.

The British might have been instrumental in the process of eliminating slavery in the modern world in the 19th century but they were certainly not hesitant to buy and use the cotton produced in the South. If they had embargoed that cotton, along with the mill owners in the Northern US, it would have gone a long way toward making slavery financially untenable. The fact is that slavery was an emotional issue in the US in the 1800s but the root cause of the War of Northern Aggression was pure and simple political power and domination just as Mike outlined.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2011)

I dont agree. blame, particulalry war guilt can be found. Its not however, usually a case of passing moral judgements based on persoanl values or moral positions. This is far too dangerous and subjective, and in the end has no right or wrong answer. A member of the nazi party, would find no blame for the Nazi aggression, based on his moral standards and general moral principals.

The best we can do is apply the law as is internationally accepted. In this case, the country that broke the law which led directly to the conflagaration was Germany. Other nations may have contributed to her motivations for doing that, though personally i am unconvinced of that. In my opinion, in the first instance Germany was the nation that broke the law, and is therefore the guilty party for starting the war. 

In the second instance, who was responsible for providing that motivation....well each country was pursuing its national interests, and lost sight of of the greater benefit s for humanity. However I still blame Germany the most for the motivation that led to the breach of the law. She was the one that actively sought war the most, the one most anxious to "gert on with it". This has to be a matter for personal opinion to the observer, so really there is no right or wrong answer in that regard. Moreover as a legal concept, motivation and provocation are factors in determining the extent of guilt. But as to who should stand accused, it always is the one who breaks the law that stands trial, and that in this case is Germany, just Germany. There are no other co-accused.


----------



## renrich (Apr 21, 2011)

Another point that has not been mentioned recently in this thread but which is a valid point about the origins of the war is the attempt by the Kaiser to build a navy to rival Britain's. Britain was bound to be sensitive about a German Navy equal to the RN because if Britain lost control of the sea in the Atlantic, then Britain was finished. In reality Germany could gain little by building a huge navy unless it could manage to defeat the RN which was highly unlikely. The money and effort would have been better spent in almost any other pursuit.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 21, 2011)

Nicely put, Parsifal, but ....  

The courts, conventions, the "law" are all wondrous creations to be sure, but as Conrad described in Heart of Darkness, civilization can quickly fade away, so I personally take heart and courage from watching nature closely - and trying to understand what I see. (For example: why would two crows seek to drown a third crow? I thought only HUMANS did such mischief ) So I repeat - Germany was late to the "nation game" and overcompensated BIG TIME. Punish them. And we did. Now move on.

And Renrich, thank you for this thread, one of the best ! But as to this: "... Spring of 1917, with no Russian Revolution". I disagree. The 1917 revolution started in 1905 - exacerbated by the incompetence, loss of life and financial burdens of the Russo-Japan war (1904-05). Was the Russian military response in 1914 really _that _much more "competent" (I don't know but I'm asking )? - but the action was closer to home, with easier logistics.

So - given Russian history - a revolution was coming - Communist or otherwise - with all the chaos that such revolutions cause, because they start off as one event and morph into another (think the French).

But the world would have been better off if both Britain and the USA had stayed out of Europe in 1914. There were a lot of cards in play, empire, industrialization, modern communication, steam transportation, global markets, space to expand, but, in the end - it was a grudge match that France won because "her friends" were more powerful than Germany's.

So - I don't disagree with your thesis overall R, but would take it even further. How long would Germany have needed to subdue France and Belgium and negotiate "peace" in Europe (Napoleon's Continental System) if Britain had stayed home in September, 1914?

Thanks for a great thread.

MM
Proud Canadian 

PS - I write what I write about 1914-18 with the knowledge that my Grandfather (Dinsmore) and his two sons enlisted and served the duration overseas. They would be shocked at my cynicism. But hindsight is a wonderful thing  and I honor their service.


----------



## renrich (Apr 22, 2011)

I think the point about whether or not the entry of the US prevented a peace in 1917 is that all the combatants were exhausted in 1917 and there were movements toward a peace settlement. The US entry gave hope to the Allies and there is no doubt that the US weight on the side of the Allies tipped the scale. The revolution in Russia may have taken place anyway but probably in a different manner. A peaceful settlement would have most likely have prevented the Nazi party from taking power and also have prevented WW2.

This thread has sparked some very fine discourse and I have really enjoyed it. Thanks to all.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 22, 2011)

renrich, hope we're not done, been working on the "ramification" end of WWI for a couple of days now. Hope to spark some more debate:
The immediate legacy of the decision to lay the blame for WWI at Germany’s door was the disastrous Treaty of Versailles [1918]. Of the nations that participated in the drawing up of the treaty, only the United States sought some measure of leniency for Germany, seeing this as the path to a lasting peace in Europe. As it was, while Britain was ambivalent, France under Georges Clemenceau, elder statesman of the Third Republic wanted vengeance. The Treaty explicitly stated that Germany accepted sole responsibility for the war and promised to pay reparations for all the damage done to the civilian populations of the Allies. Germany’s military was to be limited to no more than 100,000 troops, the navy severely cut back, an airforce was forbidden, as was any manufacture or import of armaments. Finally, in an effort to create a buffer zone with France, the Rhineland was to be turned into a demilitarized zone.
Most devastatingly, Germany was forced to pay reparations, initially 226 billion Marks in gold, although this was subsequently reduced to 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to $ 385 billion in 2011, a sum that many economists at the time, notably John Maynard Keynes, deemed to be excessive and counterproductive and would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay. The final payments ended up being made on 4 October 2010. the twentieth anniversary of German reunification, and some ninety-two years after the end of the war for which they were exacted. This ruinous amount meant the Germany could not effectively rebuild its own damaged economy. This in turn created a populous impoverished underclass that was ready to listen to and embrace radical revolutionary movement that promised to alleviate the country’s plight and resurrect its fortunes. Perversely, at a time when the allies were demanding this enormous sum, they stripped Germany of 13% of its territory, including Alsace-Lorraine – a powerhouse of the German economy-which reverted to France. With the loss of this region, together with west Prussia, 16% of its coal fields, half of its iron and steel industry, and all of its overseas colonies. Germany faced a ruinous future.
The most important impact of the treaty was the effect it had on German political life. The allies demanded the creation of a civil government, and so the Kaiser and his chancellor were replaced by a parliamentary democracy – the Weimar Republic – which was disliked by moderates and loathed by extremists on both the left and right. Its inability to deal with the economic crises that occurred between 1919 and 1923 left its reputation in ruins among German workers, even after the economy began to pick up in the latter half of the 1920s. In practice, the parliament was so weak that any unscrupulous but determined groups willing to target dissatisfied workers had a good chance of securing power within the republic. 
In any event, the Allies were either unwilling or unable to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, most importantly the provision on re-armament. Although they made some token effort to ensure compliance, Germany soon began to roll back the terms of the treaty. When a political party arose in Germany in the late 1920s that promised to restore German freedom and pride – the Nazis – the Allies watched and did nothing. Even France, which had a clause inserted in the treaty that allowed for French occupation of the Rhineland should Germany ever attempt to remilitarize it, failed to act when the critical moment came in 1936. Vacillation simply encouraged extremists in Germany, who resented the treaty and interpreted a lack of action by the allies as weakness.
Of all the legacies of the four major powers ruthless imperial policies, the rise of Hitler was the most significant. In many respects, the horrors of the Holocaust and the misery of WWII are directly attributable to WWI and the subsequent ruin of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazis were able to rise to power only because Germans were resentful and beset by economic and political crises. As Professor Richard J. Evans (Regius Professor of Modern History University of Cambridge) writes, the Nazis tapped into the “incredulous horror [of] the majority of Germans [and] the sense of outrage and disbelief the swept through the German upper and middle classes like a shockwave.” Those were some of the people that cheered as Hitler made clear his intentions to discard the lingering military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles along with a promise to resurrect Germany’s former glory.
Had it not been for the Four Powers Imperial delusions, WWI may never have been fought in the first place. Even if Britain had not intervened, and Germany had defeated France in a European war, the circumstances that bred Hitler would never have eventuated. A German victory would have refashioned the face of Europe, with the next big war likely to have been a clash between Germany and the rising tide of Communism in the east. World War II might have been avoided. And with nothing to hasten the fall of the old imperial powers, the way would not have been so clear for the United States and the USSR to emerge as the two contending superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 23, 2011)

"... Had it not been for the *Four Powers Imperial delusions*".

Please refresh my memory, Mike. Are you talking France, Britain, Russia and Germany?, or maybe France, Britain, Russia and Turkey.

If ONE "Imperial" power was delusional than ALL were. As an American, I understand your revulsion for matters "imperial" . but all of the following were "Imperial" (or trying to maintain or be more so) in 1914: Britain, Russia, France, Austria, Turkey and Germany. If Empire is repulsive - then surely ALL empires are repulsive  .... no?

MM


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2011)

Dont agreew that the the treaty was the cause of WWII because it was too harsh. Quite the opposite. It was far too lenient, and gave Germans the ability to delude themselves that they had been stabbed in the back, robbed of victory by fifth column jewish conspirators and freemansons, and a whole lot of other claptrap that allowed germany to delude itself that it had been robbed of victory. 

I am firmly in agreement with Pershings view of how the war should have been ended. namely that no terms other than unconditional surrender should be offered, and no peace accepted until allied troops stood on the street corners of Berlion. That was how the peace of WWII had to be completed, and though it meant that communism had to be combatted for another 50 years, it also meant that the world was finally rid of fascism from the end of that war.

If Germany had not been given the opporunitiy to sugar coat its defeat at the end of the war and in fact had been pushed into absolute and total defeat in 1919, as Pershing and other clear thinking generals were advocating.

The 2nd Reich was an aberration by 1918. If it had been allowed to exist, or defeat the Russians and the French on the contiinent, as is being advocated here, the post war situation would have been much worse than it was historically. We would have seen the Germany in control of the whole of Europe, with an undefeated battlefleet, and controlled by men like Ludendorf who were as radical as Hitler, but far more deadly and efficient as administrators and military men. Britain would not have been able to resist such a force, and the neither could the US. The lights of democracy and freedom would have been extinguished forever. Conctration camps, murder, no rule of law, absolute eviul and terror would have been the result, and who knows the world we would be living in today. 

As to the failure of Versailles as a treaty, I dont blame Clemceau, or any of the other hawks. I blame bleeding hearts like Wilson who did not understand what had to be done to make the proice of the war worth it. What had to happen under that treaty was a total and brutal suppression of all the militaistic illusions that the germans continued to believe in after the peace. Reparations, and brutal repression did not cause this, it was the half victory that was settled for, and the escape routes handed to the german militarists as a result of that weak treaty


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2011)

While I agree that unconditional surrender was the way to go, I still can not agree with the terms of the treaty. The reparations that Germany was forced to pay was oblivious. These reparations only helped to fuel the feelings that were spreading in Germany. 

The treaty should have and could have been better handled and dealt with, and in that regard I do believe the treaty led to WW2 (obviously not the whole or main reason, but something that led to it). In my opinion they are the same conflict with a cease fire in between. 

I also find it too easy to give all the blame to Germany for the start of WW1 (and always will feel this way). To give the complete blame is absurd. The whole political climate during that time was aflame. In my opinion all the major nations share the blame (some more than others, and I will concede that Germany does share most of the blame).

I have a feeling that in this regard we will just have to agree to disagree (of course I am sure some will call this revisionism, but whatever...),


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2011)

I think i have previously accepted that all the nations that went to war in 1914 share a measure of the guilt. If not that has to be admitted./ however, as to who was responsible, or mostly responsible, I think I have made it very clear who is to blame for the outbreak of the war. I take a strictly legailistic view in that regard, because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse. Who fired the first shots, who undertook the first invasions? In point of fact the actual events that immediately precursored the war are not all laying blame at Germany....other nations were quick to pull the trigger as well, but germnany was at the centre of the maelstrom, and had the ability to either cause the war or avoid it. She cose war, though other nations were only slightly less gleeful to getting into the war. 

Versailles was an unsatisfactory treaty, there is no doubt. It could have been a weak treaty in the hope that it might appease the german public into not trtying their hand at war again, although I seriously doubt that would be successful, or it could have been a much more severe treaty in the hope of terrorizing the German people into never trying on an aggressive war again, but I doubt that would work either, unless Germany was shown in absolute terms that they had been utterly defeated. Instead, we got this half hearted affair, that was trying to be all things and finished up being nothing. Because of its obvious weakness, but implied malevolence, it gave its enemies all the ammunition they needed to paint a lie about how badly Germany had been treated, and robbed of her rightful victories etc etc.... none of this was true.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 23, 2011)

".... because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse."
While this is often true, Parsifal, the opposite is also often true .... judgements made _on legal and legal presidents positions_ are also open to abuse. One just has to look at the role of the United Nations for confirmation of that.

Nonetheless, you are right about Perishing and the "surrender" of Germany.

When a nation (or individual) is reduced to absolute powerlessness as a result of self-inflicted actions it is important that the "settlement" leave no doubt about the causes of the misfortunes. Versailles was the precursor of the kind of social-global engineering decisions that we see today from the UN. (_Create_ Poland, create Czechoslovakia).

Germany was the aggressor - and multiple blows across the snout (as ever many as it took) until Germany said loud and clear to the whole world "UNCLE". (Uncle is this case stands for unconditional surrender). The Allies were remiss in not holding out for this. But - Professor Woodrow Wilson would never have been comfortable with that position -- besides -- there were too many German-American voters to permit that position to be tenable. But - hindsight being 20:20 - Hitler should never have been given the emotional and political underpinnings of the Nazis state - and that's what Versailles gave him - as well as pissing off a bunch of other Europeans like the Hungarians.

Why have Germany and Japan become the stable, democratic powerhouses that they have become since 1945?? NOT BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on the part of the Allied planners and politicians in 1945. Versailles was DRIVEN by French desire for revenge - although they were beaten again and again - fair and square (from Waterloo to Sudan). By _that_ token, Japan should be America's sworn enemy - not her biggest customer. 

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 24, 2011)

The problem with the Treaty of Versailles is both that it was too harsh and to lienient at the same time. Unconditional surrender backs everyone into a corner. The Allies had plenty of teeth built into the Treaty but chose not to enforce the conditions of the Treaty. France could easily has occupied the Sudatenland but chose to ignore event is Germany. Again, I do not mean to wander off topic but the Japanese surrender document as outlined in the Potsdam meeting set the correct tone:
On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
On the other hand, the declaration stated that:
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
Contrary to popular belief, the only use of the term "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, the Declaration made no mention of the emperor at all. Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively, whether the emperor might become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.
The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb (which had been tested successfully on the first day of the conference).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 25, 2011)

".... The problem with the Treaty of Versailles is both that it was too harsh and to lienient at the same time."

I agree, Mike. Such settlements are de-stabilizing because the "words" don't match the "deeds" and suggest that the documents don't really "mean" what they say. 

Cheers,

MM


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2011)

They must be putting something in the water, because I agree with that summation as well

I think that in the first instance, it was a mistake to let Germany off the hook with a conditional peace. That was mistake number one. mistake number two was having accepted a conditional peace, the allies then tried to make the traty as nasty as they could, which only bred resentment when mistake number 3 is taken into account.

Mistake number 3 is having produced a treaty intended to monster the Germans , the Allies failed to protect or uphold their treaty. this gave its opponents an easy road to a significant moral victory. I can think of hardly a worse outcome.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 25, 2011)

".... something in the water" 

Agreed. Let's have another drink .

MM


----------



## imalko (Apr 25, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> When a nation (or individual) is reduced to absolute powerlessness as a result of self-inflicted actions it is important that the "settlement" leave no doubt about the causes of the misfortunes. Versailles was the precursor of the kind of social-global engineering decisions that we see today from the UN. *(Create Poland, create Czechoslovakia)*.



I've noticed this line of thinking in several your earlier posts Michael. If I misunderstood then I apologize. But, it seem to me that you deprecate the creation Polish and Czechoslovak states by the Versailles treaty (Not to "piss" the Hungarians!?"). Didn't these nations have the same right for self determination and independence as Germans and Italians did in second half of 19th century. Care to elaborate?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 25, 2011)

"... I've noticed this line of thinking in several your earlier posts Michael. If I misunderstood then I apologize. But, it seem to me that you deprecate the creation Polish and Czechoslovak states by the Versailles treaty (Not to "piss" the Hungarians!?"). Didn't these nations have the same right for self determination and independence as Germans and Italians did in second half of 19th century. Care to elaborate?"

Thank you for asking, Igor. In truth there was powerful lobbying at Versailles for the creation of those two countries. Both were blessed with fine statesmen who expressed the desire for nationhood passionately and effectively. But surely Czechoslovakia was always inherently what it became in the end - _two_ hockey powers - the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic  -- _each_ wanting to shape its own course. And surely Poland was "created" from land previously held by the German alliance (Triple E) nations -- always a shaky start INMO.

To be clear Igor, my tone on this is NOT meant to deny either people: " ... the right for self determination and independence" but rather (as I implied by my UN references) my dislike for the manner in which the process was conducted by the Versailles signatories. Delusional. (Like the creation of nations in Africa, regardless of natural tribal- religious groupings)

There ultimately is only one true test of nationhood and that is the ability to survive and flourish. Poland has always been caught between east and west - drawn by Slavic tradition towards the east but at the same time drawn by culture (France) and Catholicism towards the west. When east and west clash - Poland is in the middle. (By the same standards and processes, the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian states were recognized - but in their cases each fought wars of independence and secured power themselves.)

Are you OK with my explanation, Igor. I do concede that I am a broken record on some topics  but the only topic where I mean to be acerbic is on the topic of France. France gets cut way too much slack IMHO . If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920. And I do repeatedly beat _this_ drum: nations that don't learn by their experiences (either from hubris or incompetence) keep repeating their mistakes. No country is without fault but the French take the cake for "restarts"  at other's expense.

MM


----------



## imalko (Apr 25, 2011)

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> They must be putting something in the water, because I agree with that summation as well







parsifal said:


> I think that in the first instance, it was a mistake to let Germany off the hook with a conditional peace. That was mistake number one. mistake number two was having accepted a conditional peace, the allies then tried to make the traty as nasty as they could, which only bred resentment when mistake number 3 is taken into account.
> 
> Mistake number 3 is having produced a treaty intended to monster the Germans , the Allies failed to protect or uphold their treaty. this gave its opponents an easy road to a significant moral victory. I can think of hardly a worse outcome.



...and yes I agree as well.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 25, 2011)

Contrast Versailles (and subsequent actions and events) with the Marshall Plan (post 1945). America learned lessons from Versailles that other nations have _still _not learned or have been too poor to implement. 

MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 25, 2011)

Hallelujah my brothers, we have reached a meeting of the minds. going to shut up now and enjoy our meeting of the minds. my thanks for a fantastic debate, highy enjoyable gentlemen, til next we duel


----------



## Marcel (Apr 26, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Contrast Versailles (and subsequent actions and events) with the Marshall Plan (post 1945). America learned lessons from Versailles that other nations have _still _not learned or have been too poor to implement.
> 
> MM


 That's indeed what I meant in earlier posts. Well said!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 26, 2011)

Thank you. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Apr 26, 2011)

can someone say something controversial or which i cant agree with...all this agreement is putting me to sleep!!!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 26, 2011)

OK Parsifal. 

"... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."



MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 26, 2011)

Just to pick up at some of the inferences made by Mike about the attitudes of Britain and France during the years prior to WWI, I think it's fair to say that they well represent the actions of status quo powers (ie countries who hold a dominant position and want things to stay just the way they are). Fast forward to WWII and the status quo powers were still Britain and France, with Germany and Japan as the aggressive revisionists. However, we can't lump all the Allies of WWII into the "status quo" bucket. Neither the USA nor the Soviet Union wanted the status quo as defined by the colonial European powers. Interestingly, now that the USA is the top dog it does, on occasion, adopt "status quo" measures and policies to defend/maintain its position and influence. 

Sorry if this is a digression but I think it's at least partly relevant to the topic under discussion - the effect of structure -vs- agency in the definition of foreign policy. It's pretty much the same today as it's always been, we just use different forms of pressure and leverage now.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Apr 27, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I think i have previously accepted that all the nations that went to war in 1914 share a measure of the guilt. If not that has to be admitted./ however, as to who was responsible, or mostly responsible, I think I have made it very clear who is to blame for the outbreak of the war. I take a strictly legailistic view in that regard, because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse. Who fired the first shots, who undertook the first invasions? In point of fact the actual events that immediately precursored the war are not all laying blame at Germany....other nations were quick to pull the trigger as well, but germnany was at the centre of the maelstrom, and had the ability to either cause the war or avoid it. She cose war, though other nations were only slightly less gleeful to getting into the war.
> 
> Versailles was an unsatisfactory treaty, there is no doubt. It could have been a weak treaty in the hope that it might appease the german public into not trtying their hand at war again, although I seriously doubt that would be successful, or it could have been a much more severe treaty in the hope of terrorizing the German people into never trying on an aggressive war again, but I doubt that would work either, unless Germany was shown in absolute terms that they had been utterly defeated. Instead, we got this half hearted affair, that was trying to be all things and finished up being nothing. Because of its obvious weakness, but implied malevolence, it gave its enemies all the ammunition they needed to paint a lie about how badly Germany had been treated, and robbed of her rightful victories etc etc.... none of this was true.


 

Right, I've read the entire thread and found this post by *parsifal* to be perhaps the most objective and well thought post of it all. Could have ended there. As stupid as WW 1 was, it was inevitable. With most of the western nations having gone through their own industrial, technological, and scientific innovations at break neck speed, combined with a nationalistic and militaristic fervor not before seen, it was not a question of "if", but "when". I'm convinced that had it not been Gavrilo Princip's shot in Sarajevo, it would have been something else. The entire notion that one country holds more blame than another (others) is a bit moot, considering that at the same token, it is also pointless to blame the powder keg when it's fuse has already been primed and lit.

That said, I find the idea that Versailles being the focal point of having been the root of WW 2 to be a little absurd. While it may have provided the Nazis with inspriation as a point to direct their ire against, with the Locarno Act and later Kellog-Briand treaty, Versailles was made more or less toothless, in conjunction with ports of Versailles not being enforced. The fact of the matter is, by the time Hitler took power, Versailles was really no longer having any effect other than some kind of symbolic glue holding the Allies together. By the time Hitler had completely solidified his hold on Germany, Versailles, for all intents and purposes, was really nothing more than a propaganda point. Mind you, I would argue that had Clemenceau and Foche had _their_ way, extreme as their idea may have been, there probably would have been no WW 2 either.



mikewint said:


> Even France, which had a clause inserted in the treaty that allowed for French occupation of the Rhineland should Germany ever attempt to remilitarize it, failed to act when the critical moment came in 1936.



As already discussed on a much older thread, The US and UK effectively tied France's hands on this issue. Mind you these are the days before anything like "pre-emptive strike" became a foreign policy.



michaelmaltby said:


> The raw seeds of WW1 are in 1870 - the Franco Prussian War. Total French humiliation - The Emperor was captured. Revenge for France poisoned all relationships after that. The neighborhood had changed - France didn't.
> 
> MM



Please explain to me how it was France which did not change out of the remaining nations of Europe, other than the fact that France remained a representative Republic when the other nations were either monarchies, constitutional monarchies, or autocratic states. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that France should have accepted the loss of Alsace and Lorraine regions? It's a complete dismissal of the fact that France has always viewed the natural border between France and Germany as the Rhine River, whereas the Germans always held the view that the border was the Voges region. You're using too much hindight with a personal bias to arrive at this conclusion.



michaelmaltby said:


> "... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."
> 
> MM


 
Classic revisionism, and in complete contradiction of historical fact. Firsly, no one "bailed out" France. Secondly, just how on earth was France to become a "Benelux" nation with crippling postwar economic ruin and manpower (human) shortage after such a war boggles my mind, though I'm interested in your theory, if it exists. Your statement is at odds of the fact that the Marshall plans and Versailles were designed differently for the circumstances at hand. The Marshall Plan had much more to do with building a powerful economic wall to counter the threat of Communism after WW 2........with Versailles there was no such exterior ideological threat. 


Gentlemen, everytime I read a discussion on what role exactly did the Versailles Treaty play in circumstances leading up to WW 2, I'm always amused, and even astounded by a certain ignorance in one crucial aspect of such conclusion. What is *never* discussed, is what compensation should have been owed to France/Allies by Germany/Austro-Hungarian empires? Mind you, people often forget that much of Eastern France, and also Belgium at the end of WW 1 looked like this:







When presented with a wasteland such as this, any immediate agricultural output is out of the question. With countless villages wiped of the face of the planet, just what kind of economy exactly is to be expected? Not to mention over 1.3 million of her men now buried in her soil, I'm curious to ask just how France is to recover without compensation. Just what exactly would have been considered a "fair" compensation package using common 1918 logic? France a "Benelux" nation in 1919? Blow-wine-out-my-nose-laughing!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 27, 2011)

a sobering reality check VG, some good points I admit......


----------



## parsifal (Apr 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> OK Parsifal.
> 
> "... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."
> 
> ...


 
I think the consequences of a french defeat at the hands of the germans in WWI were far more dire than that. Germany would still have emerged from this war bruised and radicalised, with the Kaiser removed IMO and someone like Ludendorf in charge. Germany would settle for nothing less than total domination of Europe, and though Ludendorf was not a hitler, he was still a radical. Europe dominated by a radicalised Germany, with an undamaged fleet means that GB is also toast. With britain subverted and/or absorbed, you then have a radicalised, victorious germany able to overthrow the last bastions of Democracy in the New World and Oceania. Its the end of democracy and our basic freedoms and every bit as scary as a Soviet dominated Europe. Its definately not business as usual......a rather high price to ensuring the French get their "just desserts". And I happen to disagree that the French have any "Just Desserts" incidentally.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 27, 2011)

Good points VG. However, your statement that "By the time Hitler had completely solidified his hold on Germany, Versailles, for all intents and purposes, was really nothing more than a propaganda point" seems to ignore that the damage (from a German perspective) had already been done. One of the key problems in the post-WWI period was the failure of the Allies to occupy Germany. This gave root to the idea that German political leaders quit when the army was winning which was already popular long before Hitler started his ascent to power. The Nazis simply capitalised on it and on the "injustices" already meted out under the Treat of Versailles.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 27, 2011)

@VG: ".... Please explain to me how it was France which did not change out of the remaining nations of Europe"

France HAD already changed - we have discussed that on this site tho not this thread. The Revolution followed by Napoleon and the Continental system set in motion a process (1848 revolutions etc.) that "changed the neighborhood". Can we agree to that much ...?

Then, in my view, France - mesmerized by illusions of her past glory - kept reaching backwards to past glories (Louis Napoleon - didn't ONE Emperor do enough damage ?) while nations formed around them. The Franco-Prussian war caught France by surprise and France responded with incompetence (army surrounded, Emperor captured). France may have believed the Rhine was her eastern flank but IIRC there were lots of Germanic influence in the Saar region of France. How could THAT be?? 

"... Classic revisionism, and in complete contradiction of historical fact. Firsly, no one "bailed out" France."

(a) Parsifal asked for some controversy on this thread. I provided some . I do realize that introducing Benelux was over the top. Intentionally so.

(b) This forum is not a degree granting institution. Most of the interesting ongoing debates (as opposed to juicy nuggets) are revisionist, IMHO . Sorry you disagree, AG.

(c) Bail out, rescue, expeditionary force: I don't care what you choose to call the UK-Commonwealth efforts 1914-18. I call it "Saving France's bacon" with very little reward in terms of future effectiveness - because France doesn't learn lessons very well. Too busy admiring herself in the mirror.

Thanks for joining the campaign AG. You've made Parsifal happy. 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 27, 2011)

".... Europe dominated by a radicalised Germany, with an undamaged fleet means that GB is also toast"

I simply do not agree that GB is also toast. Think, man.

Let me rephrase your words to test their validity: ".... Europe dominated by a radicalised Germany, with an undamaged fleet means that The British Empire (the Commonwealth as it was to be known by 1939) is also toast".

Remember - Britain is not bankrupted by war in France against Germany (in MY no-bailout, no 1914 expeditionary force scenario). Britain's resources are all focused on the sea lanes - keeping them open - and mercantile commerce with her "colonies"  --  -- soon to be _fighting_ Dominions.

No one in Canada would have cared much about Germany invading Belgium and France IF Mother-England hadn't picked up her "duty" and called for the rest of her family to pitch in.

And - in the word's of my wonderful Mom (1899 - 1992) who saw her Dad and older 2 brothers go overseas in 1914-15 and return in 1918: "it was poor little Belgium we felt sorry for, overrun and speared by the Prussian lancers". Canada (I can't speak for Australia or New Zealand, I hear everything is upside down there ) didn't go to war for _France_. Even in Quebec - from the pulpit - the Catholic Church preached _against _the war - against helping _France_. My suspicion is that the Australians and New Zealanders (and the other colonies) felt much the way Canadians did about going to war in 1914. It was for England and Empire. Rule Britannia.

No one on this thread has given the least thought to a question I posed earlier on the thread. (Overlook my inflammatory language if you must, , but deal with the hypothesis, please): "If Britain hadn't bailed out France in 1914 - how long would France have resisted the German offensive before settlement?" I felt comfortable with 1916. Look at how Germany tried to integrate France into its war economy (1940-44). As Tuze shows, it wasn't very effective for the Germans. Productivity (and quality) were low  but the mindset and industrial skill sets were there in Germany.

And - in 1916 - there had been NO Russian Revolution. A successful Germany in 1916 has no need to facilitate the passage of Lenin to ease the pressures on its Eastern flank. Besides - Russia won't fight long without France as an ally - this isn't a toughened Red regime as of 1941).

Going to France in 1914 was an act of suicide for Imperial Britain. (Britain's role in European land wars _should_ have ceased with the end of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna). With Germany up and rising, there was no room for "delicate" interventions.

Moving on .... 

Chairs
MM


----------



## mikewint (Apr 27, 2011)

mikewint said:


> if Britain had not intervened, and Germany had defeated France in a European war, the circumstances that bred Hitler would never have eventuated. A German victory would have refashioned the face of Europe, with the next big war likely to have been a clash between Germany and the rising tide of Communism in the east. World War II might have been avoided. And with nothing to hasten the fall of the old imperial powers, the way would not have been so clear for the United States and the USSR to emerge as the two contending superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century.


Michael, I did not comment because you and I are in total agreement on that score. It was Britain's choice to intervene thus globalizing the continental war. Whatever British intentions were the result was WWI and the Versailles Treaty (French vengeance to dominate) insured a Nazi Germany and WWII.
Agreed that some of that is speculation (revisionist)


----------



## imalko (Apr 27, 2011)

> Then, in my view, France - mesmerized by illusions of her past glory - kept reaching backwards to past glories (Louis Napoleon - *didn't ONE Emperor do enough damage* ?) while nations formed around them. The Franco-Prussian war caught France by surprise and France responded with incompetence (army surrounded, Emperor captured).



Aha! Haven't you said in the other thread that when all is said and done Napoleon played a positive role in history...?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 27, 2011)

".... Aha! Haven't you said in the other thread that when all is said and done Napoleon played a positive role in history...? .

Yes, Igor, I certainly have (with specified qualifications). But one blue bird does NOT make a summer - as we say. Emperor Bonaparte got the ball moving ... brought modernity to continental (recently feudal) Europe. He DID NOT bring modernity to Britain. Britain had been constantly changing ... from Henry II breaking with Rome over marriage and heirs ... to Magna Carta under King John ... to Henry VIII's overthrow of the Roman church in Britain ... to Oliver Cromwell .... most recently, to Margaret Thatcher .

The French had their glorious Empire under Louis XIV .... lost a good chunk of it ... continued on their way, unchanged, until revolution swept the country. They always tried (try) to get back to where they were IMHO.

One blue bird -- Napoleon -- doesn't equal an ongoing process of continuous change (reform, revolution, whatever) .

MM


----------

