Posted on 02/04/2011 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When then-Sen. Barack Obama made a short video for the "peace caucus" delegates to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, he captured the enthusiastic support of his party's pacifist wing. It was enough to propel him to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton's ad -- showing a red telephone ringing at 3 a.m. -- only emphasized to party pacifists that Obama was their man.
And, of course, leading antiwar figures like George Soros heavily bankrolled MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets -- all echoing the same pacifist line. Pacifism -- as the name implies -- ought to lead to peace. But it too often doesn't.
In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.
On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.
Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon "all parties" to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as "mere scraps of paper" and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that "the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve." That would be the English Channel.
Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?
G.K. Chesterton, the famed English writer, tells us why in his memoirs. Chesterton was well-connected in Liberal Party circles. He wrote the Liberals were indebted to Manchester millionaires for their party's campaign financing. Those Manchester millionaires were religious pacifists. They would not have tolerated any blunt, direct warning to Kaiser Wilhelm from Sir Edward Grey or from the Liberals' prime minister, H.H. Asquith.
To close this loop, however, it is necessary to show that the headstrong Kaiser would have been deterred by such an unambiguous warning. Fortunately, such evidence exists.
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett is the greatest of diplomatic historians of the interwar period of 1919-1939. In the summer of 1939, Sir John visited the ex-Kaiser at his exile home in Holland. There, on the eve of a second horrific conflagration, the deposed German emperor confirmed to this young British scholar that if he had only known that Britain would declare war, he would never have allowed his generals to invade Belgium!
Thus, we see how the entire world was dragged into the cataclysm of World War I -- with its 20 million dead. Out of what Winston Churchill called the world crisis was born Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Arab nationalism. We can trace to World War I some of what we are seeing on the streets of Tripoli, Cairo, and Amman even today.
I was fortunate to have Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as my professor of diplomatic history at the University of Virginia. I have not forgotten his worldly wisdom. It was thus with the deepest misgivings that I watched as our unprepared president advanced from one dangerously naïve statement to another as he sought and won the presidency.
Mr. Obama's bowing to desert despots, his fawning speech in Cairo, his signing of an appeasing treaty with Russia -- within days of the exposure of a Russian spy ring! -- all of these communicate U.S. weakness and increase the danger to steadfast American allies -- like Israel and the newly free states of Eastern Europe.
Let us hope that President Obama pulls back from his party's pacifist majority in time.
There was never a real prospect that Britain would not fight if Germany violated its treaty on Belgium. But a clear, strong "shot across the bow" might have prevented the horror of the trenches.
Ronald Reagan said that "no war in my lifetime has taken place because America was too strong." He set about rebuilding our "hollowed-out" military and repairing the damage done by four years of the invertebrate Jimmy Carter.
President Obama is gutting our defenses and broadcasting his belief that America has been the obstacle to world peace -- until, that is, the Obama administration, bedecked with olive leaves and holding doves in its extended hands, was installed. No more hazardous mindset can be imagined. Peace through strength has ever been the safest of policies for this Great Republic.
“but the man who put it all together saw the cornerstone of Germany freedom was his alliance with Austria and Russia. The League of 3 Emperors. The Kaiser screwed that all up by pushing the Russians to ally with France. Prior to that Germany and Britian had been allies against France.”
By the way, it’s impossible to understand WWI without knowing that there was a war faction in government. A faction that, like the Nazis, figured they could fight a successful general war in Europe. These are the types who drafted the “Schlieffen Plan.” They got their way in 1914.
“Russia was responsible for the 1st world war. They were the first power to throw their weight around.”
You, sir, have been duped by Germany. Just so happens that, according to diplomatic conventions, throwing your weight around and mobilizing for war are not themselves acts of war. They never had been considered such, except suddenly by Germany in 1914. I wonder why?
Germany deliberately built their system around being able to mobilize in the midst of fighting, whereas Russia and France had to mobolize first, for weeks, before they had stategic options. This allowed Germany to wait until after its enemies mobilized to invade them, thus plausibly blaming them for starting it. Well, plausibly to people who nowadays don’t realize mobilizing for war and fighting a war aren’t the same thing. But they didn’t fool everyone way back when.
By the way, if Russia started it, why did Germany invade Belgium? What does Belgium have to do with Russia? What does Germany and Russia not being allies anymore have anything to do with Germany trying to conquer France?
Ridiculous. Britain practiced Splendid Isolation after Crimea. Their best allies were the Germans on the continent, to contain France on the continent.
It’s only after the Russians and the Germans fell out that Germany felt ‘trapped’, and diplomatically isolated. Even after the buildup their navy was nothing compared to Britain, which is why the naval war was a mere sideshow.
Germany didn’t smell any weakness. They fought in 1914, after Russia mobilized, because they had no choice. Once the Entente was put together between Britain and France and Russia (the three world powers at the time), that left Germany allied with Austria. This was a drastic upset in the balance of power.
Russia invaded them in East Prussia, and it was Lundendorff and Hindenburg who destroyed them at Tannenburg and the Masurian Lakes.
Despite being massively outnumbered, the Germans fought for 4 years on the continent and it took bringing the US, to end the war. Germany managed to fight the three world powers at the time to a standstill. Sure they lost, but they destroyed Russia (far larger and more powerful at the time), and came within a hair’s breadth of destroying France. Had France surrendered in 1917, the war would have ended, with Germany defending her possessions in the west, and owning most of former Poland and Lithuania in the east.
The typical balance under Metternich was France + Austria + Spain, vs Prussia, Russia and Britain. Austria and Germany were natural rivals, as were France and Russia, as were Britain and Spain. Once the Russian and German alliance fell out, the only natural partner was Austria.
“whereas Russia and France had to mobolize first”
So you admit that Russia AND France mobolized first? Germany fought back in self-defense. Do you think that if she were on the offensive that they would choose to fight a two front war? Hardly.
If the war was started with Germany, they would have fought on only the eastern or the western front. Instead, because Russia declared war on them, they were forced to defend on both. Defended so well that, as you said, they never fought on German soil in the west.
“What does Germany and Russia not being allies anymore have anything to do with Germany trying to conquer France?”
By the way, I realize the answer is that Russia starting it by throwing its weight around and thus causing war with Germany would have left Germany vulnerable to a backstabbing by France, which justified them in a preventive attack. Not only do you now justify Germany in treating a country throwing its weight around as a cause for war, which was never the case before. But they are also justified in invading another country because they might at some point in the future attack them while they’re fighting the aforementioned war. Which, also, was never the case before.
Reminds me of those who argue that the Soviets were justified in conquering Eastern Europe because they had been invaded a couple of times in the recent past. Which, first of all, ignores the imperialistic wars they fought shortly before being invaded against Poland and Finland. But it also acts as if everyone else is just a pawn in the nation in question’s strategic calculations. As if they have no dignity of their own.
Never have I heard such thin justifications for empire. At least in the dark old days of colonialism they argued that their rule was better for those they had conquered.
The Franco-Prussian War led to WWI.
“So you admit that Russia AND France mobolized first? Germany fought back in self-defense.”
Wrong. Mobilization is not an attack. It never, ever had been considered a cause for war before. That was never part of the diplomatic tradition. You have fallen directly into the trap Germany laid for you, allowing it to argue “self-defense” for purely offensive acts.
“Do you think that if she were on the offensive that they would choose to fight a two front war?”
Yes! That was their plan. They wrote it down! It’s called the Schlieffen Plan.
“Instead, because Russia declared war on them, they were forced to defend on both.”
Wrong. Russia did not declare war on them. Now you’re simply lying.
“Defended so well that, as you said, they never fought on German soil in the west.”
Why do you figure they did as well as they did? Could it possibly be that they deliberatly planned things so that they’d be able to mobilize while they fought, unlike their enemies? Also, because, unlike their enemies, they actually were on the offensive?
“The Franco-Prussian War led to WWI.”
No, actually, God creating the heavens and the earth led to it.
A better argument would involve the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that “banned war.” I would argue that reliance on that worthless treaty kept Britain and France from realizing the danger they were facing in Germany until it was too late.
League of Three Emperors?
Russia was an Empire too. Who do you think dismembered Poland?
“Germany in treating a country throwing its weight around as a cause for war,”
A Russian invasion into East Prussia, is cause for a defensive war. The Germans in the First World War, did not have the same goals as in the Second World War. Nor did they fight in the same manner or the same fashion.
Outside of the opening year, the entire war was defensive. Russia collapsed in 1917. Then France held on, and Germany finally collapsed in 1918, after the US came into the war.
The Germans did not want war in 1914. They knew that if they fought everybody, they would lose. They did the best they could in a hopeless situation, and darn near pulled it out in the end.
“Yes! That was their plan. They wrote it down! It’s called the Schlieffen Plan.”
Yes, I studied the Schlieffen Plan. The Plan was to be used in the case that a two front war was inevitable. The German plan in an offensive war in the West was the same as in 1870, to run straight through Sedan and to Paris.
They did not want a two front war. They knew going in that war against the Entente was suicide. The reason for the swing through Belgium, is because they wanted to draw the French forces in Lorraine deep into Germany and swing around Paris.
In a war against France alone, they would have just massed everyone at the border and punched through again, using surprise. Which is what they did in 1870. They already had the playbook for victory against France. They needed one for France and Russia.
When Russia invaded East Prussia, the war was on. Germany did not invade Russia. Germany did not invade Belgium until after Russia invaded East Prussia.
Things were so bad in East Prussia that Moltke replaced the East Prussian commander with replaced by Lundendorff and Hindenburg, because he wanted to withdraw all German forces behind the Oder river, and abandon all of East Prussia.
Lundendorff was elevated and he recalled Hindenburg to the eastern front. They realized that the attacks of the Russian 1st and 2nd armies, under Rennenkampf and Samsonov were not co-ordinated. Then they realized that their communications were unshielded. So not only were they not listening to one another, they were broadcasting their movements to the Germans.
Lundendorff managed to slip in armies behind the Russians, and encircle the second Army at the First battle of Masurian Lakes. Than 4 months later, he was able to do the same to Rennenkampf, who hadn’t even bothered to advance from Gumbinnen to Koenigsberg.
“Germany didn’t smell any weakness.”
They did, or else they wouldn’t have fought. They may have banked on Britain staying out of it, but that’s only a different sort of weakness.
“Ridiculous. Britain practiced Splendid Isolation after Crimea. Their best allies were the Germans on the continent, to contain France on the continent.”
It was a long time between the 1850s and 1914. This was the period, in fact, during which Germany became a world power. And if Britain didn’t immediately see them as a threat, they obviously eventually did. Hence all the arms control agreements, designed to keep Germany from catching up with the big boys.
“It’s only after the Russians and the Germans fell out that Germany felt ‘trapped’”
Whatever. You can justify pretty much everything under the sun by saying you feel trapped. The Nazis argued the exact same thing, hence the battle cry of “lebensraum.” The Soviets could’ve argued similarly. Doesn’t justify starting wars, conquering continents, and empire-building.
“Even after the buildup their navy was nothing compared to Britain, which is why the naval war was a mere sideshow”
I’m scratching my head as to the relevance of this.
“They fought in 1914, after Russia mobilized, because they had no choice.”
BS. Russia mobilizing was not at the time considered casus belli. If Germany took it as such, they would have been at least in violation of various principles of diplomacy and international law. But they didn’t, as it turns out. Using Russia as casus belli was a lie, specifically tailored to trick people like you.
Germany had a choice, and they made it.
“Despite being massively outnumbered, the Germans fought for 4 years on the continent and it took bringing the US, to end the war. Germany managed to fight the three world powers at the time to a standstill...Had France surrendered in 1917, the war would have ended, with Germany defending her possessions in the west, and owning most of former Poland and Lithuania in the east.”
Hooray for Germany!
“far larger and more powerful at the time”
Larger, yes, but obviously not more powerful. Unless you mean something like “latently powerful.” As I’ve always said, hold latent power in one hand and poop in the other, see what gets filled first.
“The typical balance under Metternich was France + Austria + Spain, vs Prussia, Russia and Britain. Austria and Germany were natural rivals, as were France and Russia, as were Britain and Spain. Once the Russian and German alliance fell out, the only natural partner was Austria.”
You fall here into the Kissenger trap, viewing competing nations as fundamentally similar. Often they are, but not always. You must treat an aggressor differently than a mere rival. The balance of power after 1815 was not comparable to the balance in, for instance, 1914, 1939, or 1945. I’d like to have seen Metternich keep the peace with Napoleon in the picture.
“The typical balance under Metternich was France + Austria + Spain, vs Prussia, Russia and Britain. Austria and Germany were natural rivals, as were France and Russia, as were Britain and Spain. Once the Russian and German alliance fell out, the only natural partner was Austria.”
You fall here into the Kissenger trap, viewing competing nations as fundamentally similar. Often they are, but not always. You must treat an aggressor differently than a mere rival. The balance of power after 1815 was not comparable to the balance in, for instance, 1914, 1939, or 1945, for lack of aggressors (Germany, Germany, and the Soviet Union, respectively).
I’d like to have seen Metternich keep the peace with Napoleon in the picture. His fame derives from Europe happening to temporarily run out of Napoleons.
“They did, or else they wouldn’t have fought.”
They didn’t have a choice once France and Russia mobilized, and Russia invaded.
“They may have banked on Britain staying out of it, but that’s only a different sort of weakness.”
They hoped Britain would stay out of it, but the Schlieffen Plan left them no other options. Their first choice was to stay out of war.
“It was a long time between the 1850s and 1914. This was the period, in fact, during which Germany became a world power. And if Britain didn’t immediately see them as a threat, they obviously eventually did.”
They weren’t really considered to be a threat, until after Bismarck left and the diplomacy changed. Bismarck understood two things, that Germany only could be formed with the isolation of France, and the only way Germany could do so is by allying with Russia and Britain against Austria and France.
Religion wise, the alliance between Germany and Britain made sense. When the league of three emperors fell apart, and the Entente formed, Germany was the isolated power, not France. This left her in a much weaker position. Diplomacy is important, because the whole powder keg exploded because of failures in diplomacy.
“Hence all the arms control agreements, designed to keep Germany from catching up with the big boys.”
The point being that if you include the French Empire and the British Empire and compare it to the German Empire, the German Empire was far weaker than both. Far weaker even than the Russian Empire in terms of manpower.
You are right that technologically they were considered to be the best on land, but what did Britain care what they did in Europe?
“The Nazis argued the exact same thing, hence the battle cry of “lebensraum.” The Soviets could’ve argued similarly. Doesn’t justify starting wars, conquering continents, and empire-building.”
The Nazis were not the same as the Kaiserreich. It’s a real pity that Wilson intervened because it was a ‘nice job breaking it’ hero. America intervened too late to do any good, and early enough to still get involved. Had America intervened early along with the rest of Britain’s allies and Empire, the war would have ended quickly. That she waited until 1917, when the war was nearly lost, cost the stable governance in not just Germany, but Austria as well. Yes, two Kings were toppled, but the Kaiserreich wasn’t the Nazis.
The whole second world war could have been prevented had America either intervened early or stayed out of it. As usual, America intervened to protect their communist allies.
“Even after the buildup their navy was nothing compared to Britain, which is why the naval war was a mere sideshow”
I’m scratching my head as to the relevance of this.
“They fought in 1914, after Russia mobilized, because they had no choice.”
BS. Russia mobilizing was not at the time considered casus belli. If Germany took it as such, they would have been at least in violation of various principles of diplomacy and international law. But they didn’t, as it turns out. Using Russia as casus belli was a lie, specifically tailored to trick people like you.
Germany had a choice, and they made it.
“Despite being massively outnumbered, the Germans fought for 4 years on the continent and it took bringing the US, to end the war. Germany managed to fight the three world powers at the time to a standstill...Had France surrendered in 1917, the war would have ended, with Germany defending her possessions in the west, and owning most of former Poland and Lithuania in the east.”
Hooray for Germany!
“far larger and more powerful at the time”
Larger, yes, but obviously not more powerful. Unless you mean something like “latently powerful.” As I’ve always said, hold latent power in one hand and poop in the other, see what gets filled first.
“The typical balance under Metternich was France + Austria + Spain, vs Prussia, Russia and Britain. Austria and Germany were natural rivals, as were France and Russia, as were Britain and Spain. Once the Russian and German alliance fell out, the only natural partner was Austria.”
You fall here into the Kissenger trap, viewing competing nations as fundamentally similar. Often they are, but not always. You must treat an aggressor differently than a mere rival. The balance of power after 1815 was not comparable to the balance in, for instance, 1914, 1939, or 1945. I’d like to have seen Metternich keep the peace with Napoleon in the picture.
“A Russian invasion into East Prussia, is cause for a defensive war.”
That didn’t happen until after Germany declared war on France and Russia and after they invaded Belgium.
“The Germans in the First World War, did not have the same goals as in the Second World War.”
Not all of the same goals, but enough of them.
“Nor did they fight in the same manner or the same fashion”
Well, they didn’t have tanks and planes, and not “blitzkrieg,” exactly, although they did mobilize faster than everyone else. They didn’t have the SS and the Nazi ideology, but the similarities are daunting. And all the differences aren’t really germane to the present discussion, i.e. whether they started the war.
“The Germans did not want war in 1914”
Yes they did. That’s why they declared war and invaded other countries.
“They did the best they could in a hopeless situation”
The best they could do was declare war on nations that had not given them cause for war and invade a neutral country? If that’s the case, I wonder, what would not doing their best entail? What would it have taken for them to be seen as aggressors?
“Russia invaded them in East Prussia, and it was Lundendorff and Hindenburg who destroyed them at Tannenburg and the Masurian Lakes.”
You seem very tied to this idea that Russia attacked first. Are you not aware that Germany declared war and started fighting in the west a full couple of weeks before Russia moved? If so, I suggest you brush up.
Are you aware, further, that this was Germany’s entire plan? To be able to fight after its enemies have started mobilizing, and to mobilize on the move without having to wait precious weeks after hostilities have begun.
That make Soros a criminal, not a war-monger. Soros wants not-war so he can manipulate all parts of his empire.
“I’m scratching my head as to the relevance of this.”
Outside of Jutland, the naval campaign was basically irrelevant through the first world war.
“BS. Russia mobilizing was not at the time considered casus belli.”
Invading East Prussia isn’t Casus Belli? Germany did what America would have done in the same situation. Fight as hard as she could as long as she could.
“Germany had a choice, and they made it.”
True, they could have surrendered. I somehow doubt that facing that situation that America would have surrendered.
“Hooray for Germany!”
Yeah, hooray for Germany. Unfortunately for the Baltics and for everybody, not the case. Think the Baltics aren’t happy to be spared Russian domination?
“Larger, yes, but obviously not more powerful. Unless you mean something like “latently powerful.” As I’ve always said, hold latent power in one hand and poop in the other, see what gets filled first.”
Russia had a 2:1 manpower advantage. Adding France and Britain and their respective Empires makes it close to 8:1. That’s not even counting the Italians, who fought the Austrians to a standstill. Add America and that’s 10:1 manpower advantage for the allies.
Germany knew that war against everyone in 1914 was suicide, but they stood up against Russia and France and Britain for 4 years. Nobody, not even the most optimistic expected them to hold out that long. Everyone expected that the war would be over by Christmas, especially in Britain and France, for the same reasons that I’m laying out here.
The only advantage that Germany had was choosing the battlefield, and fighting on the defensive. And it was nearly enough. Strategically, the war is hopeless. Past the first battle of the Marne, the Allies held the initiative, which they never relinquished. You can’t win playing defense.
“I’d like to have seen Metternich keep the peace with Napoleon in the picture.”
Metternich’s system was designed to keep France from doing what she had just done, and conquer all of Europe.
This is why 1870 was such a surprise. Prussia alone took on France and won. They had the plan, and the intiative, France did not. WW1, the Germans played defense, and unsurprisingly lost.
WW2, Hitler managed to invade and defeat everyone, just like Napoleon, and lost in Russia, just like Napoleon. In the end, unlike Napoleon, the state was occupied, and divided. Unlike Napoleon, German allies were occupied. If Germany had treated France the way France treated Germany, France would have been partitioned, and the low countries would be German. Unlike in the Second world war, where all of Eastern Europe became Russian, and they simply traded one dictator for another.
The worst part about both wars? Democracy came out the worst. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 20th century that countries which existed in the first decade had been restored.
So what were all those wars for?
“They didn’t have a choice once France and Russia mobilized, and Russia invaded.”
Ha! Congratulations, you’ve fallen for Germany’s propaganda. Mobilization does not equal war. Never did, never will. Germany invaded first (Belgium, that is). Russia didn’t invade until after Germany declared war on them.
“They hoped Britain would stay out of it, but the Schlieffen Plan left them no other options.”
I don’t understand this.
“Their first choice was to stay out of war.”
“What evidence is there for this claim?
Diplomacy is important, because the whole powder keg exploded because of failures in diplomacy.”
Yes, but not in the way it’s usually presented. The nations Germany eventually went to war with failed diplomatically in the sense that they did not accurately demonstrate their willingness to fight.
“You are right that technologically they were considered to be the best on land, but what did Britain care what they did in Europe?”
Do you seriously think Britain was neutral as to who dominated the European continent? Then why did they go to war after all?
I’m not talking about a shooting war.
He is a war-monger in the sense he takes down business and Govs without firing a shot.
Same results, same collateral damage.
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.