Origins of The First World War and ramifications

[buffnut453]

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]

@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]

".... 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]

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]

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]

".... 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