How Europe Went to War in 1914 (1 Viewer)

[VBF-13]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

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

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

More the opposite France also mobilized before Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

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

I repeat this:

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

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

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

 

[DonL]

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

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

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

Edit:

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

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

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

 

[VBF-13]

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

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

 

[redcoat]

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

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

 

[silence]

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

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

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