Posted on 01/31/2014 11:47:48 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Britain could have lived with a German victory in the first world war, and should have stayed out of the conflict in 1914, according to the historian Niall Ferguson, who described the intervention as "the biggest error in modern history".
In an interview with BBC History Magazine, Ferguson said there had been no immediate threat to Britain, which could have faced a Germany-dominated Europe at a later date on its own terms, instead of rushing in unprepared, which led to catastrophic costs.
"Britain could indeed have lived with a German victory. What's more, it would have been in Britain's interests to stay out in 1914," he said before a documentary based on his book The Pity of War, which will be screened by BBC2 as part of the broadcaster's centenary season.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
French knew they had lost most of their warrior class. That’s why they build the maginot Line. They didn’t have enough troops to defend itself and hoped the forts would do it.
I had a similar experience looking at the wall at Eton, seeing the ages of the fallen. Heartbreaking and wasteful.
In 1939, France had a large and modern army - around 900,000 men and 5 million reservists with at least some military training. They, however, lacked the will to crush Hitler early.
I just finished a book about the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich; in the book they claim that the Czech resistance obtained Hitler's plans for the invasion of France a month before it took place - including their plans to bypass the Maginot line through the Ardennes. They passed the intel on to the French, but the French disregarded it.
I thank God He gave me the faith to believe that His Son will come and we will have a “thousand” years of peace. I believe it will be around 3k, but that is just a pattern thing. No actual proof. He will reign as dictator of the world, but with justice and mercy. Thinking about it is my place of peace.
Hindenberg was in DC observing the U.S. civil war. Certainly he learned what worked (e.g. Confederate raider ships and submarine) and what didn't (e.g. bayonet charges over open ground against automatic gatling guns).
Lincoln's aerial observation balloons fascinated him, and he returned to Germany to turn them from passive wind-swimmers into active war machines...later called dirigibles because of their framework.
Looking at the posts there are a lot here who know more about the beginning of WWI than some. But there has not been any mentions of the “conspiracy theories” of how we got involved.
Here is one from a conspiracy web page.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_ch_08.html
“WARBURG, PAUL: New York City. German, naturalized citizen, 1911. was decorated by the”Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Handled large sums furnished” by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky. Has a brother who is leader of the espionage system of “Germany.”
“Strangely enough, this report, which must have been compiled much earlier, while we were at war with Germany, is not dated until December 12, 1918. AFTER the Armistice had been signed. Also, it does not contain the information that Paul Warburg resigned from the Federal Reserve Board in May, 1918, which indicates that it was compiled before May, 1918, when Paul Warburg would theoretically have been open to a charge of treason because of his brother’s control of Germany’s Secret Service.”
There are so many conspiracy theories about how big bankers got us into WWI that it would take a library to list all of them.
How much is true I don’t know.
The Sultan in Constantinople was doomed no matter what. The rising ideology of the Turks at the time was for consolidation. They wanted to rid their country of the Arabs, they saw them as backward. They wanted a pure Turkish state that was secular and modern unencumbered by Islamic fanatics and backward tribesmen.
Is that supposed to vindicate the Kaiser? Not like he was going to turn Belgium into independent Flanders and Wallonia.
Anyone want to go a step further and say “Belgium only for the Belgae”?
It’s worth remembering that the world *almost* went to total war during the U.S. Civil War.
That’s why Hindenberg was in the U.S. observing the war, in case Britain decided to enter on the side of the Confederates (they did not...only because Egypt...now known for Egyptian cotton, had its first successful cotton crop in time for the UK to have an alternative supplier of thread for London’s textile mills).
Likewise, the Russians were considering mobilizing an Army for an invasion via Siberia/Alaska, and the French *did* invade Mexico but in what surprised Europe...the French were soundly routed by the Mexican Army on the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo).
By the end of the U.S. Civil War, Europe had seen France routed by what they had once considered an inferior Mexican Army, and they saw the U.S. fielding the world’s largest, most powerful navy of iron clads, submarines, crocodiles (semi-submergibles), and electrically-detonated naval mines, plus the world’s largest, most powerful Armies (with multi-fire weapons such as Gatling Guns), as well as the only combat air force of any sort with a fleet of observation balloons.
It’s from their observation (and in the case of France, unsuccessful intervention) of the U.S. Civil War that Europe drew for its military and political changes during the WW1 buildup.
You are right in the gist, but wrong in the details. Prussia would not have sent a 15-16 year old teenager to the United States to be a military attache. However Phil Sheriden was the US military observer at the HQs of the Prussian General Staff during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Sheriden became very close to Otto von Bismark. It is Sheriden’s relationship with Bismark where the Germans learned and adopted the concept of total war, as practiced by Sherman and Sheriden (Shenadoah Valley). This was important in the German’s dealings with the French francs-tirreurs behind their lines. As an aside, Gen. Burnside was observing from within Paris during the Siege of Paris.
Germany wanted the railway systems in Belgium to supply their troops as their right wing swept through to sidestep the fortifications and the bulk of the French army in eastern France. When the Belgians refused to grant passage to the Germans they went in anyway. In short, the Belgians were in the way.
It also worthwhile to note that the original plan envisioned violating Dutch neutrality as well but this was eliminated as in a later revision. The German staff figured that they could squeeze the troops through without taking over the Maastricht hook.
When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.
So then any tyranny is justifiable, by that inapplicable saying?
The French intervention in Mexico was not defeated at the Cinco de Mayo. Yes the French were defeated at this battle, but the dusted themselves off in Veracruz, reinforced their army and then marched off to capture Mexico City and chased Juarez over the Rio Grande. France was however stuck with a guerrilla war on their hands, but eventually pulled out for two reasons. One, the North won the Civil War and was massing troops on the Rio Grande. They did not want to fight the United States. Two, the tensions with Prussia were heating up in Europe, and they needed all their troops back in France. So they washed their hands of Maximilian and left him to his fate.
If you mean Paul von Hindenburg, the WWI general and Hitler pawn, I think you may be confused. He was commissioned as a looie in 1866.
Likewise, the Russians were considering mobilizing an Army for an invasion via Siberia/Alaska
May have had a little bit of a logistics issue there, some decades before the Trans-Siberian Railroad and all that. LOL
the French *did* invade Mexico but in what surprised Europe...the French were soundly routed by the Mexican Army on the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo).
Yup. They lost that battle in 1862, but it was only a temporary setback in their conquest of Mexico.
France routed by what they had once considered an inferior Mexican Army
France was never routed in Mexico. They got tired and went home, much like the USA in Vietnam. Largely because of deteriorating conditions in Europe vis-s-vis Prussia. But even more so because USA moved troops to border in TX in 1865 and hinted very strongly they'd like to see the French leave.
The French pulled out in 1866, leaving Maximilian in power over most of Mexico. Like the S. Vietnam government, he couldn't stand on his own, however.
I've read a great deal about European consideration of intervention in the WBTS, and I don't think any of the parties were ever particularly keen on the idea.
BTW, I particularly like your notion of observation balloons constituting a combat air force!
Balloons were first used for this purpose, BTW, in 1794.
Yup. We're all familiar with that definition of treason in the Constitution as having a family member in charge of espionage for a foreign power.
If Warburg got us into the War, why didn't he get us in on the German side?
He shoulda changed his name to Peaceburg.
I'd say between Austro-Hungarian and Russian/Serbian ambitions. Germany backed Austria-Hungary and France threw in with Russia. The German war plan involved an invasion of France which involved invading Belgium, and that brought England into the war. It was a mess all the way around.
I guess you could see France as scheming to get their own back against Germany, but as Germany had taken away Alsace-Lorraine and imposed a massive indemnity on France after the 1870 war, France's search for allies was understandable. Germans didn't show much sensitivity in their dealings with other countries and that got worse when Wilhelm took over.
Don't forget a Hanoverian (or is it Stuart or Plantagenet) ruling over the 13 colonies again ...
I'm a Jacobite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.