[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43893228]Why would they want to fight a two-fronted war? They didn't even believe that Russia was a glass giant at the time.[/QUOTE]
Then why did they go to war in the first place? Why would they ever start fighting Russia if they didn't want a two front war? The alliance between Russia and France was not at all secret. Germany was so sure of a two front war that they declared war on France first and invaded straight off.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887035]I mainly say that if Napoleon didn't cause hundreds of states to cease existing during his wars, there would be a decentralized Germany and Italy rather than an empire and Austria would have still been dozens of independent states that were connected by family rather than one empire.
Napoleon basically caused European power to shift from the edges to the center and as a result a huge arms buildup which led to African colonialism, Breakoff of Latin America from Spain and etc. And this shift in the balance of power led to things like the Crimean wars which offset russia and just a whole load of bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Implying Napoleon was entirely responsible for the Napoleonic Wars.
[quote]
In 1907 the widely respected American diplomat Henry White was instructed to ascertain British views. He met with his friend Arthur Balfour. White's daughter "overheard" one of White's conversations with Balfour as follows (it was probably White's way of not directly violating secrecy pledges):
Balfour: We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.
White: If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.
Balfour: That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war... Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.[/quote]
shows the mentality of the ruling class in britain at the time quite well
I'll just repeat what my history teacher told us when the question was brought up.
Every country involved when it first broke out shares a certain amount of the blame. You have to understand the political climate of that time. Europe was inter-connected by a complicated series of alliances that, when unwoven, neatly divided Europe into two armed camps, the Entente and the Central Powers. There is a reason why Europe was called a powder keg by those who were smart enough to see what these alliances and defensive pacts would lead to. You can consider Serbia to be the spark that set the whole thing ablaze. If any two countries should be to blame it would be Serbia for being the spark and Austria-Hungary for calling in those alliances and formerly starting WWI. Of course traditionally the Germans were blamed even via treaty. Why Germany? Well, Austria-Hungary no longer existed, Serbia was swallowed up into Yugoslavia, and Germany bore the brunt of the fighting. There is no way the victors would blame one of their own (to the victor goes the spoils and innocence) hence the treaty that ruined Germany, virtually insured the weakness of the resulting Republic, and the Rise of Hitler, but that is a story for another day.
[QUOTE=Captain Kep;43895811]I'll just repeat what my history teacher told us when the question was brought up.
Every country involved when it first broke out shares a certain amount of the blame. You have to understand the political climate of that time. Europe was inter-connected by a complicated series of alliances that, when unwoven, neatly divided Europe into two armed camps, the Entente and the Central Powers. There is a reason why Europe was called a powder keg by those who were smart enough to see what these alliances and defensive pacts would lead to. You can consider Serbia to be the spark that set the whole thing ablaze. If any two countries should be to blame it would be Serbia for being the spark and Austria-Hungary for calling in those alliances and formerly starting WWI. Of course traditionally the Germans were blamed even via treaty. Why Germany? Well, Austria-Hungary no longer existed, Serbia was swallowed up into Yugoslavia, and Germany bore the brunt of the fighting. There is no way the victors would blame one of their own (to the victor goes the spoils and innocence) hence the treaty that ruined Germany, virtually insured the weakness of the resulting Republic, and the Rise of Hitler, but that is a story for another day.[/QUOTE]
Explain how Britain and France were to blame. I'd even say Russia wasn't really at fault. They were merely protecting their ally's sovereignty from being violated, same as Britain.
The thing is that the Austria and Serbia were pretty much on a line of war those days and it was just a matter of time when it would set off.
Balkan is literally a big barrel of black gunpowder. And when you set it off, you will quickly see the results.
Wilhelm's facial hair was shaped like a W, which is the first letter in "world" AND in "war". Maybe he just killed everybody?
the addition of public schools could have been something which contributed to the sheer amount of nationalism in the war on any of the sides
im not arguing against public schools in general here, but just that since it was a relatively new thing at the time it could easily have been abused by the governments to spread propaganda and teach students how honorful it is to fight for your country
[QUOTE=Explosions;43891932]Did you read my posts? Austria would never have gone to war with Serbia without Germany's backing, as they knew Russia would back Serbia in a conflict. Germany knew what the repercussions of going to war with Russia would be and they backed Austria anyway.[/QUOTE]
But Germany felt it necessary to back Austria, or else be left without an ally when France and Russia inevitably moved against Germany.
Then again, I've always applied to the theory that it was the ridiculous alliances that caused the war rather than any one power. Powers either felt they had no need to back down because their allies would support them, or felt that they couldn't back down because they'd be left without an ally.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;43897126]But Germany felt it necessary to back Austria, or else be left without an ally when France and Russia inevitably moved against Germany.
Then again, I've always applied to the theory that it was the ridiculous alliances that caused the war rather than any one power. Powers either felt they had no need to back down because their allies would support them, or felt that they couldn't back down because they'd be left without an ally.[/QUOTE]
Germany didn't just tolerate the invasion of Serbia, but actively supported it even though they had nothing to gain. Germany knew the war would happen due to the invasion, but proceeded anyway and then actually started it themselves.
In my totally unbiased opinion it was 100% France's fault.
Its dumb that people blame Germany since they just did what all of the others world powers did, back up their allies.
Blaming Serbians for wanting self-determination from an empire that was getting more repressive is a bit silly. If anything, Austria not surrendering to Serbians and their interests caused the conflict. Either way, the way the alliances were set up made it kind of inevitable.
WWI might have been avoided had the German, Italian, and Balkan questions been resolved. Perhaps if Bismark had taken an alternate route or expanded strategy that united rump Austria with the rest of German-speaking Europe and dismantled the aging Hapsburg state a balance of power less affected by nationalism could have been achieved. This is all silly speculation, of course.
I'll repeat it again: Due to the meddling by The Great Powers during both the First and Balkan wars, the powers that be set up a crisis which they could not avoid, in addition to their alliances, nationalism, and arms race.
So Explosions, I suggest you do a bit of reading on the two conflicts that directly preceded the First World War - The First and Second Balkan Wars. (Here's a good overview of the reactions and actions of The Great Powers during those wars). These were key in setting up the climate of the area in 1914.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Wars#Reactions_among_the_Great_Powers_during_the_wars[/url]
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;43893148]Did the Serbian government support the black hand?[/QUOTE]
Black Hand was coordinated by Apis mostly and was not officially directly supported by goverment. It was secret military organization. They supplied Young Bosnia which consisted of Serbs [B]and muslims and Croats.[/B] There were several attempts of assassination on Ferninand that day, it was by a pure chance that Serbian actually managed to kill him. All Princip wanted was liberation from Austrian rule and uniting of south slavic nations.
Most of the people here have no idea what they're talking about nor about A-H's ambitions to extend all the way to Thessaloníki or German's march to the east (forgot the phrase used for it). To call Princip terrorist yet glorifying Americans who broke from the British rule and similar nations who did the same is hypocritical. Germany was fully aware that war would break out, they just weren't ready during the Moroccan crises or Annexation crisis, but they were ready in 1914 an massively influenced on A-H to declare war on Serbia.
I'm kinda tired of writing almost identical words every time this discussion comes up because people are really misguided, and I may write out how WW1 played out for Germans in detail.
tl;dr: Their worst nightmare was fight on 2 fronts, they failed on knocking out France early and focusing all forces on Russians, eventually they gambled all on their submarines and failed thus depleting their resources. They surrendered while they still had parts of France in their possession so they wouldn't lose out their original territory.
[editline]13th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;43898608]WWI might have been avoided had the German, Italian, and Balkan questions been resolved. Perhaps if Bismark had taken an alternate route or expanded strategy that united rump Austria with the rest of German-speaking Europe and dismantled the aging Hapsburg state a balance of power less affected by nationalism could have been achieved. This is all silly speculation, of course.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't have to do anythign with Bismark, it has to do with people who came to power after him. They completely ignored him and his warnings of isolating France so France used the opportunity to ally with Russians. After him Germany went full conquer mode and felt it needed territory suitable for it's amount of power.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43895061]Then why did they go to war in the first place? Why would they ever start fighting Russia if they didn't want a two front war? The alliance between Russia and France was not at all secret. Germany was so sure of a two front war that they declared war on France first and invaded straight off.[/QUOTE]
Read my post in the first page.
[QUOTE]the addition of public schools could have been something which contributed to the sheer amount of nationalism in the war on any of the sides
im not arguing against public schools in general here, but just that since it was a relatively new thing at the time it could easily have been abused by the governments to spread propaganda and teach students how honorful it is to fight for your country[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front"]Well that's not quite far from the truth![/URL]
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43900058]Read my post in the first page.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front"]Well that's not quite far from the truth![/URL][/QUOTE]
Take this scene from the film Joyeux Noel. It's about the Christmas Truce.
[video=youtube;C24ww7GoFLA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24ww7GoFLA[/video]
[QUOTE=Explosions;43895061]Then why did they go to war in the first place? Why would they ever start fighting Russia if they didn't want a two front war? The alliance between Russia and France was not at all secret. Germany was so sure of a two front war that they declared war on France first and invaded straight off.[/QUOTE]
Because they didn't think they'd be dealing with a two-front war in the long run. They thought they'd be able to knock the French out of the conflict quickly enough (within at least six weeks time) by concentrating the bulk of their forces against them (leaving smaller forces in the east to defend against the Russians), after which they'd turn their attention against the Russians and therefore only wind up fighting on one front at a time rather than on two fronts simultaneously. They also assumed that the Russians meanwhile in those six weeks would be their usual lumbering, incompetent selves and wouldn't be able to mobilize quickly enough to cause any severe disruptions against their defensive forces in the east.
I could easily write a thirty-page essay explaining von Schlieffen, von Moltke, their plans, what defects there were in their plans, why things didn't work out for the Germans as they'd intended, etc., but that's the basic gist of why they went to war in the first place knowing they'd be squaring off against both France and Russia eventually. They genuinely believed they could take both nations on one at a time, and honestly, it seemed like they were going to succeed as far as defeating the French was concerned until they themselves were defeated at the First Battle of the Marne.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;43901539]Because they didn't think they'd be dealing with a two-front war in the long run. They thought they'd be able to knock the French out of the conflict quickly enough (within at least six weeks time) by concentrating the bulk of their forces against them (leaving smaller forces in the east to defend against the Russians), after which they'd turn their attention against the Russians and therefore only wind up fighting on one front at a time rather than on two fronts simultaneously. They also assumed that the Russians meanwhile in those six weeks would be their usual lumbering, incompetent selves and wouldn't be able to mobilize quickly enough to cause any severe disruptions against their defensive forces in the east.
I could easily write a thirty-page essay explaining von Schlieffen, von Moltke, their plans, what defects there were in their plans, why things didn't work out for the Germans as they'd intended, etc., but that's the basic gist of why they went to war in the first place knowing they'd be squaring off against both France and Russia eventually. They genuinely believed they could take both nations on one at a time, and honestly, it seemed like they were going to succeed as far as defeating the French was concerned until they themselves were defeated at the First Battle of the Marne.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know all of this it was a rhetorical question.
As well, the Russians mobilized far faster than anticipated, and well, it didn't work out in favor the Central Powers.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43901645]Yes I know all of this it was a rhetorical question.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I just assumed that someone with so many [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1363207&p=43887815&viewfull=1#post43887815]outright wrong opinions on who was to blame and why they were to blame[/url] probably wouldn't be much more savvy on the reasons why Germany attempted to fight the war in the beginning the way that they did.
[QUOTE=bdd458;43901647]As well, the Russians mobilized far faster than anticipated, and well, it didn't work out in favor the Central Powers.[/QUOTE]
The Germans destroyed the Russians. It was the Austrio-Hungarians who dropped the ball in the East.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43898114]Its dumb that people blame Germany since they just did what all of the others world powers did, back up their allies.
Blaming Serbians for wanting self-determination from an empire that was getting more repressive is a bit silly. If anything, Austria not surrendering to Serbians and their interests caused the conflict. Either way, the way the alliances were set up made it kind of inevitable.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43888520]
At the start of the WW1, Germany had the most professional, biggest and trained army.[/QUOTE]
Prussia. An army with a nation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
