The Thrill and Terror of the World on the Brink of World War II

I said “ I guess I missed the one on WW1.”. So I was not referring to that war, I was mostly speaking of Churchill warmongering in WW2.

The Versailles treaty was unfair and blamed the Germans and even ordered them to pay reparations. This helped create the miserable economic conditions which allowed the rise of Nazism:
“ The treaty’s so-called “war guilt” clause forced Germany and other Central Powers to take all the blame for World War I. ”—National Geographic

Russia, an Ally mobilized first before Germany, this a war like threat that caused Germany to mobilize in defense on July 30. France and Belgium both mobilized on August 1, 1914 setting the stage for world war. Germany requested permission to transfer forces across Belgium territory with a guarantee to withdraw them after the hostilities with France ended. Belgium refused thus in some ways choosing a defacto alliance with France/Gb. So no your view is too simplistic imo, Germany was not the single primary aggressor you would have me believe.

Germany of WW1 ≠ Germany of WW2.

The defeat of Germany IMO was a disaster for western civilization. It kept European powers weak and divided (a strategy GB had been following since Napoleon) while allowing her maintaining Naval dominance which allowed it to continuing subjugating vast swaths of the world population in its slave-like colonies.

A WW1 German victory would have brought a golden age of western resurgence. Eliminating the twin future scourges of communism and Nazism and allowing Europe to continue its expansion Imo. Instead we have the rot we see today.

PS please read up on German U-boat warfare in WW1 , their chance was long gone by 1917. They almost certainly could have won with that new super weapon in 1914-1916 if not for the machinations and interference of Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg the inept German Chancellor.

“...The Versailles treaty was unfair and blamed the Germans and even ordered them to pay reparations...“war guilt” clause forced Germany and other Central Powers to take all the blame...Germany was not the single primary aggressor... please read up on German U-boat warfare in WW1 , their chance was long gone by 1917...interference of Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg the inept German Chancellor.”

Belief doesn’t outmatch knowledge.

The details I posted were statements of fact. You have posted reiterations of belief - including the nebulous claim about what would have happened had Imperial Germany won, which (as a what-if) is of necessity imponderable.

The Versailles Treaty was unremarkable by the standards of prior treaties. The Prussians themselves often demanded reparations of the other European powers. Quoting National Geographic doesn’t really improve your credibility; they were woke before woke was a thing.

By 1918, both the Austro-Hungarians and the Ottoman Turks were in the final stages of crumbling. Besides Germany, there wasn’t anyone left to blame.

Britain, France, Russia, and Belgium did not whimsically choose to form an alliance one sunny afternoon in 1903 or whenever. They did so against a background of mounting German power, both industrial and military, dating back to the 1850s at least. Capabilities are more important than stated intentions.

In the face of burgeoning German overseas trade, which Britons did nothing to hinder, and the building of the German High Seas Fleet (which Britons viewed with increasing alarm), Britain set aside its centuries-long clash with France and forged an understanding, somewhat short of a treaty.

Russia in particular had been double-crossed and insulted repeatedly before 1914, sometimes directly and sometimes by Austria-Hungary with ominous hints about German backing. When things began deteriorating that final summer, they were in no mood to back down again. Hence their mobilization.

By June 1914, Franco-German relations had reached their lowest level of hostility since the 1860s. Brainlessly, the Germans insisted on executing the part of the Schlieffen Plan that mandated an attack westward before the main attack, to the east.

Belgium did not trust German assurances concerning post-crossing behavior. They were prescient: during the de facto invasion and occupation, Germans behaved in accordance with their reputation - behavior encouraged in general by Kaiser William himself, who commanded his troops to conduct themselves badly, in remembrance of the worst antics attributed to Huns - on the eve of their departure to quell the Boxer Rebellion (which petered out as they arrived). They behaved badly anyway.

Theobald von Bethmann Hollwegg was one of the few German officials to demonstrate caution or any good sense during the second half of the First World War. He argued against unrestricted submarine warfare, predicting that it would bring about “finis Germania.” His foresight proved correct.

And though it was not publicly admitted at the time, both the British Admiralty and the civil government estimated that just after the US Congress declared war against the Central Powers, Britain was within something like six weeks of being forced to withdraw from hostilities because of German submarine attacks on shipping. This was disclosed under the strictest secrecy to the commander of the US Navy destroyer squadron that reached the British Isles in May 1917 (the first of all US forces to enter the theater of war).

Portraying Imperial Germany as the victim leads nowhere.

“ Theobald von Bethmann Hollwegg was one of the few German officials to demonstrate caution or any good sense during the second half of the First World War. He argued against unrestricted submarine warfare, predicting that it would bring about “finis Germania.” His foresight proved correct.”

What? Germany was Finis after WW1. At least in the form it was before WW1. That’s like saying if Hitler gave the order for the Panzers to stop before the Aa canal in Ww2 or the BEF might have escaped—they did escape. History has proven that order was faulty. Just as Germania really was finished, Holleweg’s foresight was wrong on the U-Boat call, that’s not my opinion my man that is history. Wilson and his buds (like the British) ended up DOW on Germany anyway (something Wilson had been desiring for a while) so that made Hollwegg decision faulty in retrospection.

WW1 is not my speciality, I admit. However again, I suggest you are behind times in your understanding of the decision influenced by Hollwegg to curtail submarine warfare.

Perhaps on your understanding of the causes of the war you are more knowledgeable than me, however I suggest you overly favor the Anglo view.

Yes some of what I wrote was my opinion, in terms of the historical impact of Germany losing or alternatively winning. I would remind you your opinion comes forth as well as authors of books we both read.

Here is a piece I wrote previously on Germany’s lost chance to win WW1:

“ A very unique yet powerful theory was put forth by Robert O’Connell in the book “What if” on history changing battles that if fought another way could have produced alternative historical outcomes. In a chapter of that book O’Connell suggests Germany could have won with a Naval strategy that concentrated on Submarines.

WW2 saw that approach tried and yet failed so what was the difference if it was tried in WW1? Simply put it was technology and tactics. The U-Boat was cutting edge in 1914, sure a weapon that had been invented before, one was used by the South in the American Civil war. Yet they were crude ineffective weapons then. In WW1 Germany had an efficient, practical and deadly design. WW1 U-boats could have been used with some effect in WW2, not well but they could have sank ships.

In 1914 the Allies were almost defenseless against U-Boats. Sonar was not yet developed as a tool and Convoy Tactics had not been implemented yet in that war and other defensive methods such as escort carriers were not fully developed. In one bizarre and today almost unbelievable example quick French ships WERE OUTFITTED WITH STRONG MEN ARMED WITH BLACKSMITH HAMMERS, THE THEORY WAS TO RACE UP TO U-BOATS AND SMASH THEIR PERISCOPES…yes that is how unprepared the Allies were to fight this new weapon in 1914. Much less such a thing as land based long range reconnaissance aircraft so effectively used in WW2. Submarines were nearly undetectable, relatively silent and deadly. They would rage against Allied shipping almost at will, sinking ships mercilessly in the first year or two of the war. Early German U-Boats had an incredible rate of kills to loss ratio of 30:1, or in tonnage of one U-Boat lost for every 69,000 tons sunk. So why didn’t Germany have sufficient numbers of them and use the ones they had to their full extent?

Enter into this narrative the proud, honorable and completely incompetent , ignorant in matters of technology or military theory the Chancellor of Germany Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg.

Theobold was a bureaucrat though and through of the Prussian tradition. His entire career was spent in the civil service, he was an insider, today perhaps he would be called a career politician. He had little experience, training or education of military matters. Much less new semi-secret weapons like the U-Boat. Germany started the war with 21 U-Boats, of which only a handful or so were of the strong diesel types. Nonetheless they started sinking ships by the droves and as this was noted, production was ramped up as well as since very few were lost the U-Boat fleet gained in size rapidly. By 1915 a total of 52 new units, most with better Diesel engines, had been added . Allied losses increased proportionally and even without a crash course of top priority U-boat production the war would probably have been won by Germany if they would have been used in an unrestricted manner. This likely would have happened within a year or two according to figures shown in the work.

Then the Lusitania was sunk in May of 1915 and the US president threatened war unless German unrestricted submarine warfare was stopped. The timid head of the German Navy, Admiral Ingenhold had been replaced with the aggressive Admiral Von Pohl, who pushed hard for an immediate expansion of submarine warfare. Under his guidance the submarines available would have been fully utlilized and new production increased. He pressed this idea to the Kaiser and consequently the fate of Great Britain and the Allies hung in the balance.

Theobold Bethman-Holloweg on the other hand was terrified at the thought of a DOW by the US. He thought Germany’s U-Boats were toys, that the real chance for Germany was their grand fleet with the awesome Battleships. He did what bureaucrats do best and started manipulating behind the scenes to form a cabal. He managed to find one—-yes only one—-supporter in the Navy, Admiral Alexander Von Muller. Together they went to General (Edit) Erich Falkenhayn and induced him to join their group. Armed with such an important personage as Falkenhayn they beseeched the pathetic Kaiser and changed his mind to view the threat of war with the USA to be of paramount importance, to avoid at nearly all costs. The rest is history. The USA ended up declaring war anyway and when the Germans resumed unrestricted warfare the Allies were more prepared. By 1917 G.B. started using large numbers of depth charges, combined with the convoy system. U-boats now had to fight and trade losses on a more even loss rate. Also by 1917 floatplanes had been developed and reconnaissance could alert said convoys to danger zones.

What about the threat of war with the USA, was it the right call by the Kaiser? According to O’Connell, NO! First of all the USA was not prepared for war in 1915. Secondly the USA entrance in the war would not likely have created the developments of counter measures any faster. Within a short time frame of a year or two GBs merchant fleet would have been shattered, her people starving, the armies in France without supplies. GB would have been forced to come to terms with the Kaiser.

Sadly the end result of Hollowegs’ efforts was a bloody continuation of the war, a troubled peace and another world war in barely over a score of years later.”

Thanks for reading.

PS if you insist on further snide comments I will drop out of this conversation. I’m permanently banned on CL for getting nasty with opponents (leftists in that case) and I came here to find similarly minded conservatives to have friendly discussion with. I will not trade barbs here, or at least I’m trying. Im often wrong, sometimes often correct.

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.