Origins of The First World War and ramifications (1 Viewer)

[Marcel]

"... 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.

"... 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]

"... 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]

"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]

"... 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]

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]

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]

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]

"... 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]

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]

"... 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

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]

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]

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

Agreed, Marcel.

Renrich - I await your proposition with keen anticipation.

MM

 

[timshatz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.