Posted on 03/06/2022 6:03:17 AM PST by FarCenter
Regards,
Agreed it was a "game-changer" as well as " came out a "winner" (but only in the short term). However, "good guy" not hardly!
YOU could make the case, "good guy" for the NEW YORK BANKS that were about to eat their huge loans to Fronch & Britain because Germany was about to roll over them in Fronce. That was the end game for the Brits from the beginning. In a land war (even against Fronce, Britain & 1916 Russland), Germany was always superior.
regards
From: Paul Greenberg [mailto:pgreenberg@arkansasonline.com] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 3:01 PM To: Rertain Mike Subject: Re: The Start of the Great War
Thank you.
On Jun 28, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Retain Mike wrote:
June 28 is the anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Francis and his wife that started WW I. However, that event almost was not the catalyst. A short story in our local paper reminded me of one of a multitude interesting pieces I ran across in two years of reading every book I could find on secret service, espionage, and cryptography. In the 1967 edition and on pages 458 through 461 of 33 Centuries of Espionage I noted this explanation about the start of WW I.
“The magnates of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff and Foreign Ministry now had their Pan-Slavic provocation. In one of the many pigionholes of the Ballplatz there lay a document three years old. This was the notorious ultimatum, drawn up to be used against Serbia when occasion should arise….So consistent had been Vienna’s Great-Serbian grievance that a few minor changes in the phrasing of the ultimatum would bring it up to date…..
The illustrious Count Berchtold ordered the ultimatum to be presented in Belgrade at six o’clock in the evening of Thursday, July 23. The ultimatum required Serbia’s submission within forty-eight hours. And promptly at 6PM on Saturday, the twenty-fifth, the Serbian reply was handed to Baron Giesl, the Austrian minister. Well aware of the Austrian resolve to attack, the authorities a Belgrade accepted the demands with scarcely a whisper of protest…..
Count Berchtold had the same Serbian reply but a wholly different set of conclusions. His power to darken the future of Europe and arrest the material progress of mankind was at that hour satanic. Almost at the moment Kaiser Wilhelm was congratulating himself that the danger of war was past and ‘a great moral victory’ won without need of firing a shot, Berchtold was telegraphing Belgrade that….. Austria- Hungary consequently considered herself henceforward in a state of war with Serbia….
To be sure, economic and colonial rivalries and many other influences had long been propelling Europe toward the abyss of war. But Count Berchtold , almost singlehanded, propelled the empires into this war. It was expected the old Emperor Franz Josef would prove reluctant to put his signature to the declaration of war…..
Berchtold, however, had armed himself against the wisdom, conservatism or obstinacy of a venerable monarch. Together with the unsigned proclamation he took the liberty of laying before His Majesty a report that the Serbians had fired upon Austrian troop transports on the Danube…..No Serbian attack had occurred…..
After the emperor was moved to sign the document …..Berchtold punctiliously erased the sentence that exploited the fictitious engagement at Temes-Kubin.“
Who invited this blind Fronchman in here?
The Fronch had been planning their revenge since 1871....that is why they involved themselves in the sick man Balkans. Using the Serb terrorist organization "blackhand" to constantly probe for a weakness in the German speaking part of Europe.
The Fronch encircled Germany with countries they had defence treaties with......waiting for their day of revanche for their 1870 defeat.
I am reading G. J. Meyer’s “A World Undone.” I like Meyer because he looks at thing with a fresh eye and points out things others have missed.
A takeaway I have to his view of the intricate happenings that poorly understood led up to the collision was that mobilizations were lengthy events that must start early and once started had a life of their own. It might be Kings, Prime Ministers, Despots or Parliaments that “declared war” but war might already be thrust upon them by timetables that they did little to set in motion.
“Are you perhaps referring to the First Italo-Ethiopian War?! Because I don’t see any real connection between it and WW I”
If the question is, where did WWI start, many historians back up the date into the several wars prior to the traditional date of the Archduke’s assassination. There were several Balkan wars and the Italian war and the point is that without those then WWI wouldn’t likely have started as it did. Here are some other thoughts on when and why the war started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMKqPgWJYr8&t=12s
Arguably, what we call WWI started years earlier between the Ottomans and the Italians in Africa. Italy, only recently a nation state, thought it was late to the Empire Game and it wanted to grab off chunks of the world to call its own and the Ottomans were in decline and couldn’t hold on to the land they had...so, Italy screamed, “ROAD TRIP!” and the war started.
I then responded with, “Are you perhaps referring to the First Italo-Ethiopian War?! Because I don’t see any real connection between it and WW I.”
To which you replied, "If the question is, where did WWI start, many historians back up the date into the several wars prior to the traditional date of the Archduke’s assassination. There were several Balkan wars and the Italian war [WHICH Italian war?!] and the point is that without those then WWI wouldn’t likely have started [...]"
But you still haven't answered my question!
Your initial posting mingled Italy and its attempts at empire-building in Africa (to the disadvantage of the Ottomans). So I repeat: To which war exactly are you referring when you talk about Italy fighting for chunks of Africa to the detriment of the Ottomans?
Please!
Regards,
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your question. The Italians went into Libya in 1911 with the intention of starting an Italian empire similar to that of the other European powers. This led to further destabilization of the Balkans because it revealed that the Ottomans were not able to hold onto their possessions, which caused a lot of instability in the area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_colonization_of_Libya
I am not in any way a historian. But having read extensively I no longer believe what I was taught in school that the war started because the Archduke was assassinated. Yes, that happened, but if it hadn’t, I think the war would have started anyway. The spark that ignited it would have come from a different source. Conrad Von Hetzendorf, an Austrian general demanded war with Serbia 25 times in 1913. It was the Archduke who prevented Hetzendorf from succeeding. Then, the Archduke died and there was a cause for war without the Archduke’s hand in stopping it.
But the Italian invasion and the inability of the Ottomans to do anything about it (although they made it very costly) obviously made a lot of local powers think they could press their case for national sovereignty because the Ottomans were showing such weakness.
“...Fronch lost in 1870, a war they started, therefore they listened to Germany’s peace terms and signed to accept terms.
....Russia mobilized against Germany before anyone declared war on anyone......mobilization is an act of war...!
AND the Brits are guilty of war crimes by putting munitions on passenger ships, like the Lusitania, Which, the US was complicit in.
it’s illegal to transport arms using civilians for shields.
...why does the Brit navy STILL protect the wreck of the Lusitania...” [crazy scenario, post 59]
Wrong on all specifics, and categorically. Not surprising, coming from such a land animal.
Otto von Bismarck maneuvered the French into the Franco-Prussian War - a conflict with the limited aim of fully unifying “Greater Germany” under the Prussian yoke: a process he initiated in the 1850s. The pan-German apologists got the bit between their teeth and demanded an Empire...one of the few times Bismarck failed to get away with it.
The Austrians began the active ground phase of the war. After weeks of German gaslighting. The Russian response came only after repeated slights and pseudo-diplomatic maneuverings.
The British did arrange munitions shipments on ocean liners. The Lusitania was one; but it was not the only vessel sunk by submarines of the Kaiserliche Marine, where Americans were killed. Sinking unarmed passenger vessels was a war crime in those days; you cannot condemn British actions while excusing German actions.
The wreck of the Lusitania is a gravesite. Many nations protect similar wrecks, in perpetuity. Includes the USA.
Why are you so enamored with German propaganda?
“...The Fronch had been planning their revenge...they involved themselves in the sick man Balkans. Using the Serb terrorist organization “blackhand” to constantly probe for a weakness in the German speaking part of Europe...
...The Fronch had been planning their revenge since 1871....that is why they involved themselves in the sick man Balkans. Using the Serb terrorist organization “blackhand” to constantly probe for a weakness in the German speaking part of Europe.
The Fronch encircled Germany...” [crazy scenario, post 63]
A reminder that for some folks, the lack of evidence for a conspiracy proves the existence of the conspiracy. It’s circular reasoning, not an honest interpretation of details easily found in the historical record.
Germans have indeed historically feared “encirclement.” Historically, they haven’t been right every time.
By 1914, they lived in the most powerful industrial and military state in Europe. Starting in the 1880s, they transformed their nation, adding maritime power at every level to their already-extant overwhelming land power, out-trafficking the British in civil oceangoing trade and building a rival fleet second to no one else. Their expansion was unprecedented, adding colonial square mileage five times the size of their home territory in less than a generation.
The British suffered some degradation of oceanic trade, but persisted in welcoming German commercial vessels into their overseas facilities on a non-preferential basis. The Germans were not satisfied.
All this frightened the rest of the Europeans thoroughly; the British wreaked havoc on their own financial system in countering the naval arms race.
The invasion of Belgium was a violation of the joint British/Frech/German treaty guaranteeing Belgian national sovereignty and its neutrality: the British reacted by declaring war. A common reason to engage in hostilities.
The Germans never counted on any naval/maritime impact caused by general war with Britain. The BEF never entered their minds, neither in war planning, nor in the eventual execution of plans.
Supposing the current war ends without Russia annexing Ukraine outright or imposing a puppet government, but with Zelensky still in charge, but with Ukraine having to surrender any claim to Crimea or to the "people's republics" recently proclaimed by Putin. Would Ukrainians ever reconcile themselves to that or see Russia as a friendly nation? (Much is made of there being a majority of Russian speakers in parts of Ukraine--but language doesn't necessarily mean they aren't loyal to the idea of an independent Ukraine. I don't know if any reliable polls have been made on that issue.)
And you spew Allied lies to justify your war crimes.
“Bismarck’s big blunder at the time of the Franco-Prussian War was to demand Alsace and Lorraine...” [Verginus Rufus, post 70]
Otto von Bismarck was not in charge.
The earlier wars he engineered (against the Austrians, and then the Danes) were strictly limited, to hasten unification of “Greater” Germany under the thumb of the Prussians. With the help of Kaiser William II’s father Friedrich, he succeeded in quelling Prussian yearnings.
As the Franco-Prussian War wound down, nationalistic forces among the Prussians got the bit between their teeth; they insisted on proclaiming a German Empire. Against the wishes of Bismarck, Friedrich, and Friedrich’s father. The latter was never comfortable bearing the title “kaiser;” he preferred the more honest title of king of the Prussians.
Bismarck became Minister-Praesident and Chancellor of what’s now termed the Second Reich. During the years of his dominance, Europe remained remarkably peaceful for almost a generation.
William I reigned unexpectedly long. Friedrich succeeded him in 1888 but died about 90 days later. William II was catapulted into the position of Kaiser and Supreme War Lord at the uncomfortably young age of 29; after several clashes, Bismarck resigned in 1890. Then things began falling apart.
No successor to the Chancellorship matched Bismarck in intellect nor willpower.
Additionally, all German officials had to deal with William II, an unhappily jejune and conflicted personality on his best days. “Willy” blundered at many points and succeeded in offending or frightening every nation and every other official in Europe; suffering through a prolonged love/hate relationship with the British (he was Queen Victoria’s eldest grandchild) he insisted on challenging them over maritime dominance by building up a fleet to “counter” the Royal Navy - the one move Britons could never tolerate.
The Kaiserliche Marine was initially so tiny & so backward that it was initially headed by senior officers of the German army. Historically, the Prussian navy barely sufficed for coast defense; it drew most traditions & much instruction from Britain’s Royal Navy - whence it sent many of its minuscule officer corps for education.
William II searched for years, ultimately discovering the naval leader he yearned for in the person of Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, who stood at the head of the German navy 1897-1916. With William II’s enthusiastic approval he built up the surface & submarine fleets on the pretext that Great Britain was unfairly oppressing Germans by hampering their worldwide expansion.
And so it came to pass that a persistent sense of grievance on the part of the Germans pushed everyone else to the brink. And over it.
Good review.
I often like to say that the US was inadvertantly responsible for the rise of the German Imperial Navy. Due to the literary efforts of an American Navy offficer and Naval War College professor - Captain later Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Kaiser Wilhelm read Alfred Thayer Mahan’s book - ‘The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783’ and was entranced by it! Tirpitz also was a disciple of it.
“And you spew Allied lies to justify your war crimes.” [crazy scenario, post 71]
Jargonesque derisive nicknames and endless repetition of tired “common sense” myths don’t add anything to the understanding of history: no judgments of any use can come out of them.
In an ironic twist, more than a few freepers resist that truism; they cling to such myths as if they were religious dogma.
All this stuff I’ve mentioned is freely available in this historic record; any respondent is perfectly free to look it up on their own. I’m not your research service; if you prefer myth & legend to reality, my comments aren’t going to make much difference.
Can’t help asking the question, though: what war crimes have I committed? Just curious.
“...Kaiser Wilhelm read Alfred Thayer Mahan’s book..._The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783_...” [Reily, post 73]
Great point I forgot to mention. Thanks.
William II later said he “devoured” Mahan and required all his officers to read it. A problematic recommendation at best.
If there is any modern equivalent to the sea power Mahan cataloged and analyzed, we’ve yet to figure out what it might be.
Contrary to George Santayana’s aphorism, history isn’t as cyclical as many Americans believe. Times and technology and location always make for differences. And the tragedies & messes that many assume to “prove” circularity always happen to different people, farther along the timeline.
Unravel it if you can.
Who wrote the history books......now history books are being re-written by the communist that are running Washington.....how do you like that?
The point I was making was that Bismarck announced that Germany would demand Alsace and Lorraine from France. I read that somewhere. I don’t know if it was before or after the German Empire was inaugurated (on the anniversary of Wilhelm I’s ancestor becoming King of Prussia). But I think the demand prolonged the war because of French reluctance to submit to that demand.
Yup...
“...Bismarck announced that Germany would demand Alsace and Lorraine from France. I read that somewhere...I think the demand prolonged the war because of French reluctance to submit to that demand.” [Verginius Rufus, post 77]
I confess I don’t know the specifics of Prussian demands for settling the outcome of the Franco-Prussian War.
I doubt that the takeover of Alsace & Lorraine was any goal of Bismarck’s: he went on record saying he did not like “accepting so many Frenchmen into our house...we have to remember that we are not alone in Europe; there are other powers that hate us.” (best recollection of wording).
Nearly every other conflict or threat (bluff?) that Bismarck engineered in the Euro arena had limited aims, carefully gauged to avoid stirring up the other Great Powers. But ultimately, he was an advisor, not the sovereign. His royals & nobles didn’t always follow his lead.
Bismarck may have stood head and shoulders above all other figures of the 19th century, but we would be well-advised to recall that pre-1914 Imperial Germany was not the totalitarian society the NSDAP labored to impose on post-1918 Germany.
Parenthetically, I will advance the theory that post-1815 France was not the equal of Acien Regime France, nor even of Revolutionary France. Other Euro powers only slowly realized the nature & extent of the changes; hence they were surprised when the French caved to the Prussians in 1871, when decisive results evaded them in 1914-1918, and again when they collapsed in 1940. Even Winston Churchill did not see the final debacle coming.
“Who wrote the history books......now history books are being re-written by the communist that are running Washington.....how do you like that?” [crazy scenario, post 76]
Can’t argue with most of that.
What is missing from your analysis is any appreciation for the lack of accuracy found in much historical writings of the early 20th century, and the 19th century. Especially with regard to isolationism and exceptionalism.
The British devised their own version, which they called “Splendid Isolation.” They did not worship it as if it were religious dogma, but tossed it over the side when it was seen to be failing, after 1900.
Would that Americans who refuse do copy them become smart enough and wary to re-examine their assumptions. “I know what I know and that’s that” is often repeated in this forum; it isn’t really a valid counter-argument.
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.