> Mistaken notions, parading as received wisdom? <
Schurmann, I actually had trouble following your post. But then again I’m just a dumb Hunky from a declining rust-belt steel mill town.
Anyway, my main point was that Germany and France had no real grudge against each other in 1914. Sure, they had their differences; great powers always have their differences. But there was no difference so great as to warrant an all-out, life-or-death struggle.
That such a struggle actually occurred is indefensible. The leaders of France, Germany, the UK, Austria-Hungary, and Russia risked everything for essentially nothing.
Of course I might be just parading more mistaken notions. But I’ve got to stop now as I have Christmas perogies on the skillet.
Above all, there was no need for Britain to get into the fray.
If Britain didn’t get into the fray, then the US wouldn’t have neither.
“..., my main point was that Germany and France had no real grudge against each other in 1914. ... there was no difference so great as to warrant an all-out, life-or-death struggle.
That such a struggle actually occurred is indefensible. ...”
The German government officials did not sit down and mull over reasons for warring or not warring. Neither did the French government. The German plans required that France be beaten before anything else; therefore, they attacked France. The French responded. Is anyone being serious in suggesting they should have simply stood still and refused to defend their nation?
Lost in the blamestorming here is any acknowledgement of what the Germans did to Belgium. They demanded access, to prosecute their march into France; when the Belgians refused, they invaded anyway. But they did not simply march across, they reacted to Belgian resistance with overwhelming force and gratuitous violence. And during their occupation, they pilfered the place (as they did everywhere else they marched) and brutalized the locals.
Britain did not have a formal signed treaty with France, but it was one of several signatories to the treaty mutually assuring Belgian neutrality. The Germans abrogated the treaty; such a violation was an indisputable cause for war. Whether going to war was a good idea or not, is another question.
On a technical and tactical level, none of the combatants believed they were running serious risks. Europe had not seen major conflict since Bonaparte was defeated in 1815. At that time, every nation was of necessity an agrarian society. They fought with flintlock muskets.
By 1914, all had changed. Industrialization, steam power, nitro propellants, cartridge guns, and high explosives were all in common use and fully exploitable by belligerents; electrical power, automotive vehicles and aircraft were coming into the picture. Electronic communications were routine. The chances of severe losses seem obvious to us now, deplorably so; but few senior officials in that day thought through the implications. There were a few hints and fears, mainly found in tactical operations manuals of the armed forces.