Rethinking WWI

[Kaa-Tzik]

so why is it more reprehensible that Turkey fulfills its alliance with Germany than Russia with Serbia? That is the question you are all pussyfooting around here.

We have a very clear beginning, there was a terrorist attack in Sarajevo. Austria demands that those attacks are to be stopped or they would have to stop them. Serbia does not stop it, nor has any intention to do so, after that they attack (which is what ultimatums are for), then:

Russia mobilizes against Austria because they have a treaty with Serbia, not reprehensible according to you.

Germany mobilizes against Russia because they have a treaty with Austria, reprehensible according to you.

France mobilizes against Germany because they have a treaty with Russia, not reprehensible according to you.

So, where is the difference? And don't come with "Germany had the better plan" because later they gave Belgium an ultimatum to either let them through their territory to attack France or else....

And while the Breslau and Goeben actually crossed Turkish waters to get to Sebastopol, there is no official recognition on any part, except Russian claims, that Turkish forces were actually anywhere near the boat not that any Turkish boat was involved or that any member of the Turkish forces were anywhere on any of them.

You obfuscate and sidestep. and seem to want to bog things down in semantics and trivia. Nowhere do I even mention the word "reprehensible", and you put words into my mouth. You seem desperate, despite what you say, to absolve Germany from being the most culpable for starting the war. Before this thread I never once saw any serious attempt at this sort of revisionism, even from Germany.

[questionmark]

You obfuscate and sidestep. and seem to want to bog things down in semantics and trivia. Nowhere do I even mention the word "reprehensible", and you put words into my mouth. You seem desperate, despite what you say, to absolve Germany from being the most culpable for starting the war. Before this thread I never once saw any serious attempt at this sort of revisionism, even from Germany.

I don't sidestep, I am pointing out the obvious: Why is it more reprehensible for any of the countries on Austria's side to fulfill their alliance commitments than for those on Serbia's side?

That is the origin of WWI. Regardless of what any of those countries was planning to get out of a war with whom.

Edit: added link

Edited January 8, 2014 by questionmark

[Kaa-Tzik]

I don't sidestep, I am pointing out the obvious: Why is it more reprehensible for any of the countries on Austria's side to fulfill their alliance commitments than for those on Serbia's side?

That is the origin of WWI. Regardless of what any of those countries was planning to get out of a war with whom.

You put words in my mouth, I make no mention of reprehensible, so I do not know why you bring it up. Does rather distract from your extraordinary disingenous post #46 though. And no comment from you about insinuating that Russia had a pre war plan to take wage war against Germany to take East Prussia, no sources to show this....

It is clear you are attempting to move this thread away from the weight of history that condemns Germany as being most culpable, to nitpicking. I won't speak for myself, but there have been some very clear posts in this thread, posts that carry the weight of acknowledged history behind them, and that history has condemned, quite correctly, Germany to carry the most blame. It is you who are questioning what is acknowledged fact, so perhaps you can provide some evidence that Germany is not the most culpable. Pyramidiots are shouted at for not providing any proof of their theories, why should it be different for alternative opinions on this war.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[questionmark]

You put words in my mouth, I make no mention of reprehensible, so I do not know why you bring it up. Does rather distract from your extraordinary disingenous post #46 though. And no comment from you about insinuating that Russia had a pre war plan to take wage war against Germany to take East Prussia, no sources to show this....

I put a link to reprehensible to aid you understand the word.

But if you need an explanation: You say that Germany is to blame for coming to the aid of Austria while Russia is not to blame for coming to the aid of Serbia nor France for coming to the aid of Russia. That is not putting words in your mouth, that is what you (and some others) are disputing here (and the meaning of reprehensible)

[Kaa-Tzik]

I put a link to reprehensible to aid you understand the word.

But if you need an explanation: You say that Germany is to blame for coming to the aid of Austria while Russia is not to blame for coming to the aid of Serbia nor France for coming to the aid of Russia. That is not putting words in your mouth, that is what you (and some others) are disputing here (and the meaning of reprehensible)

Patronising. You have made posts that are disingenous at best, and you provide no reason, no answers, only to descend quite rapidly to these rather childish bullying tactics. It is you who are flying in the face of history, so it is you who should come up with some valid reasons, and so far there is nothing.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[questionmark]

Patronising and insulting, and expected. You have made posts that are disingenous at best, and you provide no reason, no answers, only to descend quite rapidly to these rather childish bullying tactics.

Hey, I put up a valid point, which you seem to be disputing evidently without understanding the point I was making. That certainly is not my problem.

And you still have not answered to my question. Speaking of side-stepping.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Hey, I put up a valid point, which you seem to be disputing evidently without understanding the point I was making. That certainly is not my problem.

And you still have not answered to my question. Speaking of side-stepping.

You are obfuscating, and you make statements without providing any sources. It is you who defy history, not me. All my answers are in the countless history books on that war, were are yours...

[questionmark]

You are obfuscating, and you make statements without providing any sources. It is you who defy history, not me. All my answers are in the countless history books on that war, were are yours...

You mean the events did not happen in the order I put forward a few times already?

Because if you can show they did not,please tell us in which of your countless history books we can find that.

[Kaa-Tzik]

You mean the events did not happen in the order I put forward a few times already?

Because if you can show they did not,please tell us in which of your countless history books we can find that.

This is a perfect example of why I say you are obfuscating. I have not mentioned any timeline, the closest was in when I showed that in my post #49 that you had, seemingly deliberately, not included the date of Russia declaring war on Turkey because you must have known that it was after Turkey had, with Germany, bombarded Sevastopol. That you say it is disputed is irelevant without any source as to who disputes what is in all histories I have read, and that is considerable. You try to say I have not answered questions, but you have pulled the normal trick of quickly answering a question with a counter question and hammering that, which draws away from your inability to answer, for example, why you say Russia had pre war plans to take East Prussia, but provide no source, or the reason for your extraordinary disengenous post about Turkey and Russia. You have not even given a reason, that I can find, about why you think Germany does not have the greater blame for the war happening. You simply throw mud about at every other country and try and say "We are all guilty", Well we are not, and that is the orthodox view. A pity nobody from Belgium or Luxembourg can not join in and say what they think about who has the most blame. I don't remember any of the allied powers cynically invading totally neutral countries to get to their enemy when their were direct routes available. Say or think what you like, but history is against you, and no amount of thrashing about will alter that.

[questionmark]

This is a perfect example of why I say you are obfuscating. I have not mentioned any timeline, the closest was in when I showed that in my post #49 that you had, seemingly deliberately, not included the date of Russia declaring war on Turkey because you must have known that it was after Turkey had, with Germany, bombarded Sevastopol. That you say it is disputed is irelevant without any source as to who disputes what is in all histories I have read, and that is considerable. You try to say I have not answered questions, but you have pulled the normal trick of quickly answering a question with a counter question and hammering that, which draws away from your inability to answer, for example, why you say Russia had pre war plans to take East Prussia, but provide no source, or the reason for your extraordinary disengenous post about Turkey and Russia. You have not even given a reason, that I can find, about why you think Germany does not have the greater blame for the war happening. You simply throw mud about at every other country and try and say "We are all guilty", Well we are not, and that is the orthodox view. A pity nobody from Belgium or Luxembourg can not join in and say what they think about who has the most blame. I don't remember any of the allied powers cynically invading totally neutral countries to get to their enemy when their were direct routes available. Say or think what you like, but history is against you, and no amount of thrashing about will alter that.

How do you want to lay blame on anybody if you cannot identify the timeline ?

Edit: And if you cannot remember anybody ever invading anybody because they needed to get there to attack somebody they had a war with you probably did not read all that much history as you claim. In the more recent history Cambodia and Laos come to mind, see Vietnam war. In older history the 30 year war comes to mind.

That was normal, you wanted to attack country A and country B was in the way you gave country B an ultimatum to either let you through or you would take care of them first (unless you were to weak to do that).

Edited January 8, 2014 by questionmark

[Ealdwita]

*Opens new pack of popcorn*

[Kaa-Tzik]

How do you want to lay blame on anybody if you cannot identify the timeline ?

Edit: And if you cannot remember anybody ever invading anybody because they needed to get there to attack somebody they had a war with you probably did not read all that much history as you claim. In the more recent history Cambodia and Laos come to mind, see Vietnam war. In older history the 30 year war comes to mind.

That was normal, you wanted to attack country A and country B was in the way you gave country B an ultimatum to either let you through or you would take care of them first (unless you were to weak to do that).

That post is utterly ridiculous, and I think you know it. That you have to resort to twisting my words and to pettyness tells much. In your post you have excused Germany for invading the neutral and totaly innocent countries of Luxembourg and Belgium. That is disgusting, totaly disgusting and shameful of you. You have brought nothing to this debate except nonsense that you cannot back up. In this thread you have lied and deliberately twisted the truth, and tried to make it that the history is wrong. You should go into the mysteries part of this forum and explain to those who are on the fringe about Ancient Egypt, you know, the posters you so love to beat up with your know it all attitude, that orthodox history does not count anymore, oh, except when you want it to go your way. hmm.

[questionmark]

That post is utterly ridiculous, and I think you know it. That you have to resort to twisting my words and to pettyness tells much. In your post you have excused Germany for invading the neutral and totaly innocent countries of Luxembourg and Belgium. That is disgusting, totaly disgusting and shameful of you. You have brought nothing to this debate except nonsense that you cannot back up. In this thread you have lied and deliberately twisted the truth, and tried to make it that the history is wrong. You should go into the mysteries part of this forum and explain to those who are on the fringe about Ancient Egypt, you know, the posters you so love to beat up with your know it all attitude, that orthodox history does not count anymore, oh, except when you want it to go your way. hmm.

Shameful of me?

I am pointing out normal rules of war, you want to get at B but A was in the way you (not so) kindly asked if you could or you would invaded them first. Once they would not let you through they had allied themselves with B and were therefore fair game. Before the treaty of Versailles (and even afterwards occasionally) that was how it worked.

The fact of the matter is that laying the sole blame of WWI on Germany was a political decision (where I must point out that Woodrow Wilson was against that from the beginning but gave in to the French tantrums). What led to WWI was not that Germany wanted war but that most of its neighbors and Germany wanted war to settle old disputes or (in the case of Germany) wanted to become the supreme power in Europe.

Edited January 8, 2014 by questionmark

[Kaa-Tzik]

Shameful of me?

I am pointing out normal rules of war, you want to get at B but A was in the way you (not so) kindly asked if you could or you would invaded them first. Once they would not let you through they had allied themselves with B and were therefore fair game. Before the treaty of Versailles (and even afterwards occasionally) that was how it worked.

The fact of the matter is that laying the sole blame of WWI on Germany was a political decision (where I must point out that Woodrow Wilson was against that from the beginning but gave in to the French tantrums). What lead to WWI was not that Germany wanted war but that most of its neighbors and Germany wanted war to settle old disputes or (in the case of Germany) wanted to become the supreme power in Europe.

Yes, shameful, and I make no apologies for saying so. Look at a map and you will see that Germany shares a land border with France. But then Germany has no respect at all, as it showed later against Belgium, again, and Nederlands and Denmark and Norway, all "inconveniences" getting in the way of the Reich. You really should explain why you have this alternative veiw that I have never come across before, not even among Germans, a country that I had lived in for few years (DDR). I made very clear in my posts that I see all the great powers as having responsibility, nobody denies this, yet you seem alone in wanting to take the greater blame from Germany, something that Germans themselves do not do, at least in public.I do not understand your reasoning in the face of acknowledged history, of facts.

[questionmark]

Yes, shameful, and I make no apologies for saying so. Look at a map and you will see that Germany shares a land border with France. But then Germany has no respect at all, as it showed later against Belgium, again, and Nederlands and Denmark and Norway, all "inconveniences" getting in the way of the Reich. You really should explain why you have this alternative veiw that I have never come across before, not even among Germans, a country that I had lived in for few years (DDR). I made very clear in my posts that I see all the great powers as having responsibility, nobody denies this, yet you seem alone in wanting to take the greater blame from Germany, something that Germans themselves do not do, at least in public.I do not understand your reasoning in the face of acknowledged history, of facts.

Well,that border was fortified and would have needed quite an effort to penetrate. Why would Germany do something so stupid when there was the possibility to either gain Belgium as ally (by Belgium giving in to the ultimatum) or by just taking it over?

And mixing WWI with WWII (which evidently was Germany's fault 'cause they could have gotten all the territory they wanted plus attack Russia by just keeping throwing tantrums Munich style every few years) does not tell us much about the causes of WWI.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Well,that border was fortified and would have needed quite an effort to penetrate. Why would Germany do something so stupid when there was the possibility to either gain Belgium as ally (by Belgium giving in to the ultimatum) or by just taking it over?

And mixing WWI with WWII (which evidently was Germany's fault 'cause they could have gotten all the territory they wanted plus attack Russia by just keeping throwing tantrums Munich style every few years) does not tell us much about the causes of WWI.

The Belgium forts, particulary Liege, were at least as strong as any of the French forts, and the soldiers as brave as that of any army. And as was proved when the fighting started, going through Belgium was a disaster that probably lost Germany the war. Germany was cynical because they totaly dismissed Belgium as a force and saw them as an easy gateway. This was, even in those times, seen as an appalling act, something that was outside accepted behaviour. The anti-German propoganda, over the top as all such things are, was hardly needed as the populations of other countries were horrified by what Germany had done, and with memories of 1870 still among the living. Germany was simply worng, morally and militeraly, to invade Belgium. Your reasons to defend Germany are still unclear.....

[questionmark]

The Belgium forts, particulary Liege, were at least as strong as any of the French forts, and the soldiers as brave as that of any army. And as was proved when the fighting started, going through Belgium was a disaster that probably lost Germany the war. Germany was cynical because they totaly dismissed Belgium as a force and saw them as an easy gateway. This was, even in those times, seen as an appalling act, something that was outside accepted behaviour. The anti-German propoganda, over the top as all such things are, was hardly needed as the populations of other countries were horrified by what Germany had done, and with memories of 1870 still among the living. Germany was simply worng, morally and militeraly, to invade Belgium. Your reasons to defend Germany are still unclear.....

They were not, as proven by Germany just taking the whole place over in 23 days while having to knock on the back doors of the French Forts to tell the blokes the war was over.

I don't defend Germany, I am pointing out that they were not the cause of WWI. They did exactly the same as France and Russia. Just a little more effectively.

[Peter B]

I said:

...the German government and military were worried that the completion of a Russian military plan in 1917 would see Russia and France too powerful for Germany to defeat. In a meeting in December 1912 Kaiser Wilhelm and Army Chief of Staff von Moltke wanted to go to war against Russia immediately. Admiral Tirpitz asked for an 18 month delay to allow the completion of a submarine base and the widening of the Kiel Canal. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand allowed the Germans to go to war pretty much at the time that Tirpitz proposed.

Questionmark replied:

So,you are admitting that all wanted to get at each others hide. The fact is that Russia wanted Eastern Prussia (did not get it in WWI but in WWII), Galizia (did not get it in WWI but in WWII) and Armenia (got it in WWI, lost part of it during the Bolshevik revolution back to Turkey).

I'd appreciate it if you could point out that these aims were articulated prior to July 1914. I understand that Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov said things along those lines after the war had started, but that prior to WW1 Russia was far more interested in the Balkans and the decaying Ottoman Empire than extracting territory from Germany or Austria.

I said:

Keep in mind that German actions pretty much took away France's ability to make a choice. Remember, on 31 July the German ambassador to France told the French government, "If Russia mobilises we will attack you." Even after a threat as blunt as that the French government did not order mobilisation.

It wasn't until the following day, 1 August, that German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg gave France the option of breaking its alliance with Russia in order to avoid war. The problem with that offer was that von Moltke had already convinced Kaiser Wilhelm that it was impossible to stop the invasion of France.

Questionmark replied:

Which still would not have happened at the time if France would have broken the treaty, Germany wanted nothing in the East nor anything in France (they already had what they wanted as a result of the 1870-'71 war), the primordial goal was to get to extend German colonies in Africa and break Britain's supremacy.

And, while the German ambassador might not have been as peaceful as it was intended by the German government, the fact of the matter is that the French ambassador was antechambering in St. Petersburg so the Russians play hardball with the Germans and mobilize. That indicates that the French did nothing to stop the war (and mostly because they did not count on the Germans to just walk past their lines by declaring war on Belgium).

I'd appreciate it if you could provide evidence that "...the French ambassador was antechambering in St. Petersburg so the Russians play hardball with the Germans..." In contrast, I can point out that: 1. On 30 July the French sent a telegram to Russia, saying in part: "...[Russia] should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany the pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces..."; 2. On the same day the French government ordered its troops to pull back 10 kilometres from the German frontier as a sign of peaceful intent; 3. Even when threatened with invasion on 31 July, the French government refused to order mobilisation; and 4. French mobilisation was only ordered after the Germans had started enacting the first stages of their invasion of France.

In addition, keep in mind the Austrian government deliberately timed the delivery of its ultimatum to Serbia until after French President Poincare had boarded his ship to leave Russia (thus keeping Poincare uninformed for a crucial day or so), and the Germans deliberately jammed radio broadcasts attempted by the French government to Poincare.

The fact of the matter is that all in Europe, including Turkey wanted something from their neighbor except Britain (that was quite content maintaining its Empire together):

Austria wanted the terror to stop, fomented by Serbia. (They got nothing)

Bulgaria wanted the Bosporus

France wanted the Alsace and the Saar region. (which they got)

Germany wanted a bigger part of Africa and reduce Britain's influence

Greece wanted the Bosporus

Italy wanted South Tyrol(which they got after WWI)

Russia wanted East Prussia (which they got partially after WWII), Galizia (which they got partially after WWII) and Armenia (which they got partially after WWI).

Serbia wanted the Balkans (which they got after WWII)

Turkey wanted to keep its empire and, if possible, get Egypt with the canal back. They were the grand looser of WWI because the empire ceased to exist.

And to achieve that they had been arming themselves for over 30 years at the time WWI broke out.

How much were these objectives articulated prior to WW1? And how much were they clear foreign policy objectives as opposed to jingoistic slogans?

How could the war have been avoided in 1914? Very simple, Austria's demands towards Serbia after the assassination were not that much different than the American demands to Afghanistan after 9/11. Quit supporting terrorists, prosecute those involved in the assassination and quit anti-Hungarian propaganda that was the cause of that terrorism.

Very simple? One of the Austrian demands was that the Serbian government "...Accept in Serbia 'representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government' for the 'suppression of subversive movements'." Such a demand was incompatible with Serbia's continued existence as an independent nation.

Keep in mind that the Austrian ultimatum claimed the Austrians had evidence that the Serbian government was implicated in the assassination, even though its own investigators had already concluded this was almost definitely not the case.

Another way war could have been avoided in 1914 was if Austria had dealt with Serbia in good faith by presenting an ultimatum which the Serbs could hope to accept with some dignity.

That does not mean that a few years later the war would not have broken out anyway and that there it actually would have been Germany's fault, but WWI was the fault of all but Britain and Austria. Blaming just the Germans falls way short.

The point I've been trying to make in my posts is that while in various ways the actions of Britain, France and Russia helped the war to start, the difference with Germany and Austria was that their governments were consciously acting to bring about war.

[SHaYap]

all of 'em was stuck at singing Heigh HO Heigh Ho ... its off to War we go ... in other words ~~

[Peter B]

so why is it more reprehensible that Turkey fulfills its alliance with Germany than Russia with Serbia? That is the question you are all pussyfooting around here.

What do you mean by "fulfills" in this case? Germany and Turkey signed a treaty of alliance on 3 August, and then on 29 October the Goeben and Breslau bombarded Sevastapol. The significance of the action is that at the time of the attack they were Turkish warships. As Turkey and Russia were not at war, the attack by the Goeben and Breslau was completely unprovoked.

We have a very clear beginning, there was a terrorist attack in Sarajevo. Austria demands that those attacks are to be stopped or they would have to stop them. Serbia does not stop it, nor has any intention to do so...

No intention to do so? They accepted 9 of the 10 conditions of one of the more outrageous ultimatums one country has ever presented to another. The one condition they rejected, that of allowing Austrian police to operate in Serbia, was a clear breach of Serbian sovereignty. To provide a comparison, if a foreign leader was assassinated while on a visit to the USA, would you expect the US government to allow the police of that foreign country to operate with impunity in the USA to investigate the assassination?

...And while the Breslau and Goeben actually crossed Turkish waters to get to Sebastopol, there is no official recognition on any part, except Russian claims, that Turkish forces were actually anywhere near the boat nor that any Turkish boat was involved or that any member of the Turkish forces were anywhere on any of them.

Yes there is. As I pointed out above, the Goeben and Breslau were Turkish warships at the time of the attack on Sevastopol. They had been transferred from the German Navy to the Turkish Navy on 16 August. The reason for this was that while Turkey was a neutral country belligerent warships were forbidden by treaty from entering the Bosporus. So if the warships were German when they bombarded Sevastopol then they had breached the neutrality of the Bosporus; but if the warships were Turkish then they represented an unprovoked attack by forces of a neutral power.

[Peter B]

all of 'em was stuck at singing Heigh HO Heigh Ho ... its off to War we go ... in other words ~~

Well, no. Not all of them at all.

What Kaa-Tzik and I have been trying to point out was there was a measurable difference in the actions of the German and Austrian governments on the one hand and the British, French and Russian governments on the other. As I said above:

...while in various ways the actions of Britain, France and Russia helped the war to start, the difference with Germany and Austria was that their governments were consciously acting to bring about war.

[SHaYap]

Well, no. Not all of them at all.

What Kaa-Tzik and I have been trying to point out was there was a measurable difference in the actions of the German and Austrian governments on the one hand and the British, French and Russian governments on the other. As I said above:

Well if one were to dig at it going further back than the immediately preceding years before the assassination I think the smoke was in the air ~ the assassin wasn't some lone nut who just woke up one morning and decided to shoot dead a foreign dignitary ~

~

[Bavarian Raven]

The bottomline is, all the major european powers were eager for a war and they all wanted it... they all wanted to be the 'big boy' on the block. Then, when they realized just how "bad" this war had become (compared to previous wars), they needed an escape goat and picked germany. Sadly, they couldn't foresee how this would lead to a bigger, worse war several decades later...

[Kaa-Tzik]

To those wish to pee into the wind of history and try to absolve Germany from primary blame for the outbreak of the war, please put forward your reasons and your sources. So far all that has presented by the "pro German" side is hot air, obfuscation and the most appallingly disengenous posts I have seen for some time, including an outrageous attempt to excuse Germany for the rape of Belgium and to excuse Turkey for attacking Russia without even declaring war.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Well if one were to dig at it going further back than the immediately preceding years before the assassination I think the smoke was in the air ~ the assassin wasn't some lone nut who just woke up one morning and decided to shoot dead a foreign dignitary ~

~

Neither was Gavrilo Princip an agent of the Serbian state. I say that because I see the thrust of some posts that wish to put the blame for the war on Serbia, and by implication, ultimately Russia. This is a lie that cannot be answered by those who say it outright or imply it. I quote from what Princip said at his trial about his reasons for the asasination.

I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be freed from Austria.

The assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not a cause for war, it was an excuse for Austria to wage the war it wanted with Serbia. The "smoke" was there all right, but in Vienna and Berlin.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik