J.D. Vance says Ukraine will have to ‘cede some territory’

1ft.io ^ | 10 Dec23 | Ramsey Touchberry

[delta7]

Sen. J.D. Vance said Sunday that U.S. officials should accept the notion that Ukraine is likely to “cede some territory” in its fight against unprovoked Russian aggression. The Ohio Republican’s remarks come as Congress weighs more aid for Ukraine, with Democrats calling for additional assistance with few if any strings attached and Republicans trying to link aid to more funding to secure the southern U.S. border. “What’s in America’s best interest is to accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians and we need to bring this war to a close,” Mr. Vance, who opposes more aid, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But when I think about the great human tragedy here, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans innocent have been killed in this conflict, the thing that’s in our interest and in theirs is to stop the killing.” President Biden has requested another $60 billion for Ukraine as part of a $110 billion national security package that also includes money for Israel and Taiwan. “On the Ukraine question, in particular, everybody with a brain in their head knows this was always going to end in negotiation,” Mr. Vance said. “The idea that Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to the 1991 border was preposterous. Nobody actually believed it.”

What we’re saying to the president, and really to the entire world, is ‘You need to articulate what the ambition is. What is $61 billion going to accomplish that $100 billion hasn’t?’” he added.

[Menes]

Sure it did.

Bismarck‘s wise thoughts had not been proceeded with. After his dismissal (which, btw, had been due to his negative attitude towards the Emperor‘s desire for better poor-relief, not due to his foreign policy), everybody should have been aware of the fact that Germany could have defeated every single nation on the Continent. It had to be prevented at all costs, that they should gangg up.

The biggest mistake was not to renew the treaty with Russia in 1890. Had it been renewed, the archenemy France might have remained in diplomatic isolation.

The idea of building a fleet was another grave mistake and served to alienate Britain, with which hitherto we had never had trouble (because we are not direct neighbors).

It is almost a law of nature that neighboring nations must hate each other, having to compete for the same living-space and other resources.

Well, hindsight is always 20/20.
Nowadays, in spite of their glorious victories, the English are our sworn arch-enemies, as they themselves say.
I regret this fact sincerely, but this fact cannot be changed. The human character has been static for all of history, after all. A leopard does not change its spots.

[Reverend Wright]

Because of downsizing and consolodation in the industry, Erie Press was taken over and is now Part of Ajax/CECO/ERIE.

I’m still trying to understand this industry, but as best I can tell, Ajax/CECO/Erie is the sole remaining US builder of these types of presses.

Their LinkedIn entry says they have 11-50 employees.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/ajaxcecoeriepress

How big would Erie Press have been in your day ?

[Reverend Wright]

“And such actions were genetically unfathomable to Kaiser Wilhem II meaning any fantasy you have about Germany invading Russia without first having to defeat France again, such fantasies are pure 100% impossible nonsense.”

---

This is absolutely incorrect.

And we know that because of the August 1 “Misunderstanding” episode where, for a few hours, the Kaiser believed that the British and the French had agreed to remain neutral in the event of war with Russia.

And there was also a big argument between the Kaiser and Moltke over the ability to change the direction of the mobilization exclusively toward the East.

The Kaiser wanted to avoid war with France.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1880196

So again I go back to the question: What does the July Crisis look like without the Franco-Russian Alliance ?

Fact is, the Franco-Russian alliance encouraged Russia to be more belligerent, and it expanded a Balkan War into a continent wide war.

For an alliance like NATO, it encourages individual recklessness because there are 31 other countries backing them up. And any war becomes a global war with 32 NATO countries participating.

Here is an example of provocative behavior that NATO membership encourages with small countries.

A play in three acts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61878929

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-says-nato-commitment-to-lithuania-ironclad-after-russia-threat/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62274474.amp

I think that was the closest we got to NATO entering this war.

[Reverend Wright]

“It is almost a law of nature that neighboring nations must hate each other, having to compete for the same living-space and other resources.”

---

Yes it is. Men are fallen and human creations are fallible.

It follows that border disputes and wars etc. are inevitable. And instead of trying to stop all wars, which is impossible, the effort should be to minimized their size and spread.

Gigantic alliances do the opposite. They ensure that the inevitable war will be gigantic when it comes.

[Menes]

I absolutely agree with you, on all three counts 👍

[BroJoeK]

Jon Preston: "We are wasting our money and resources on this unwinnable war and Ukrainians are wasting their lives
Ukrainians don’t need more weapons‼️"

In 2022 Ukrainians won back roughly half the territory Vlad the Invader's forces had seized.

In 2023 Ukrainian victories included:

1. Inflicting massive casualties, estimated at over 100,00 killed or seriously wounded, on Russian forces for no net gains in Russian controlled territories.
   Ukrainians estimate their own casualties at 1/3 of Russia's overall, about 1/10th during Russian insane "Meat Wave" assaults.

2. Destruction and withdrawal of Russia's Black Sea Fleet from Crimea, including half a dozen major ships and over a dozen smaller Russian craft.

3. Destruction of Russian transportation, supply and headquarters locations, forcing them to be moved back, ever further into Russia.

4. Destructions in Russian air-defense and electronic warfare capabilities, while increasing Ukraine's own coverage.

5. The beginnings of Ukraine's own defense-in-depth lines at points of expected Russian attacks.

6. Perhaps most importantly, public acknowledgements by both the European Union and NATO that Ukraine is already part and will eventually become an official member.

For 2024, Republican House Speaker Johnson's insistence that there must, must be a plan for victory in Ukraine has already produced meetings in Washington with Ukrainian military leaders to review Ukraine's requirements for battlefield successes.
Whether those can be achieved in 2024 is as yet unknowable, however, Ukraine's list of requirements doubtless includes:

1. Air dominance weapons -- i.e., F-16s maybe even obsolete A-10s?

2. Massive numbers of mine-field clearing equipment and ordnance.

3. Amphibious and river-crossing equipment.

4. Improved air, missile & drone defenses.

5. Longer range precision artillery, missiles & drones.

6. Massively increased production of ordnance and other expendables.

I could go on speculating, but what's a fact is that Speaker Johnson's insistence on a plan for victory (however defined) is focusing attention of both Ukrainians and the West on making "the right stuff" happen.

Jon Preston: "They need negotiations and a new president‼️"

I absolutely 100% agree that Russians need to replace their insane leadership with others who will negotiate for:

1. Removal of all Russian forces from, and recognition of, all of Ukraine's 2013 borders.

2. Long term payments of reparations to Ukraine for the death & destruction caused by Russia's insane leadership.

3. Acceptance of Ukraine's memberships in both the EU and NATO.

4. Normalization of relations, plus trade & commerce, etc. in the Black Sea and elsewhere.

Finally, it's well worth remembering that this is how Americans won our War of Independence, after six years of fighting:

1781 Battle of the Cheasapeake, France defeated the British navy!
Vive la France!

[JonPreston]

400 word minimum reply please.

#UkrainianIronCurtain - men in the #Ukraine r prohibited from leaving the country - #ZelenskyWarCriminal wants everyone ☠️. Anyone who tries to sneak out of this shit hole is hunted with drones & sent to… fight Russians!😂👇UkroNazi border guards proudly publish vid. #UkraineWar pic.twitter.com/SohubATLB8— Soror Inimicorum 🇷🇺🇺🇸☦️ (@SororInimicorum) December 18, 2023

[BroJoeK]

Memes: "I tried to explain Fischer‘s motif to you, I tried to explain Brest-Litovsk and its importance to the non-Russian peoples of the Russian Empire striving for independence, but it was in vain."

No, FRiend, you did nothing of the sort.
All you really did was hand-waving, casting ridiculous aspersions at Fritz Fischer, without ever admitting that the basics of his research findings are 100% true.

Memes: "You uphold the Germanophobic narrative of the victor nations. That is all there is to it."

Nonsense.
I simply uphold the truth of Fischer's research findings, nothing else.
Look, even a fool can "contextualize" the German Empire's aggressiveness in the early 1900s by noticing that nobody ever makes the same complaints against -- take your pick of historical figures -- a Napoleon, or Julius Caesar.
Why should Kaiser Wilhelm be judged any differently historically than those others?

So, that's not the real issue.
The real issue is that some Germans just will not stop lying to themselves and each other about it.
Instead, you keep trying to concoct a bunch of nonsense, which Fischer's research reveals are absolute lies.

Memes: "I am an independent historian by profession, I come to other conclusions than they do.
Their wet dream is to destroy my people."

Now you are descending into insanity, thus negating any claims to your being "an independent historian by profession."
If you think the truth is somehow trying "to destroy my people", then your grasp on reality is too tenuous to make your own words of any value to anyone.

Memes: "The FRG now is a slave-state to the EU and Nato, the world‘s biggest Dixie plantation, and the leftist power elite, of which the so-called intellectuals, historians or otherwise, are the slave-drivers and house ni..ers of the Big Massahs in the West."

And there it is! The ranting of a stark raving lunatic, thus identifying yourself as someone who nobody should pay attention to, ever.
Your words here are nonsense from the pits of h*ll, of the kind that drove national socialism up into the world -- so take it all back to h*ll where it belongs.

Memes: "Historiography is the bootlicker of the victors, and Fischer, a dyed in the wool Nazi, just did an about-face after 1945 to save his career.
That’s what a biography from 2004 found out, but you will never find it in Commiepedia.
Nazi scum, Commie scum, alien enemies, leftist teaitors, birds of a feather…"

FRiend, do you imagine you can somehow defeat Fischer's research by babbling stupidities at me??!
So here's what I want to know -- who told you, FRiend, that you have an actual brain?
That's the person you need to go visit again and ask them, why did they lie to you?
FRiend, as best I can tell, you have no actual brain, none, zero and so, all you can do is babble incomprehensible nonsense at me.

Do you suppose your words make more sense auf deutsch?
I don't think so because in my years in Germany, I did meet occasional old-style luny-tunes, but the vast, vast majority of Germans I knew were perfectly rational and happy to pursue their lives successfully.

So let's put some facts regarding Fritz Fischer on the table:

1. "Fischer joined the Nazi Party in 1939, and left the Party in 1942.[5]"

2. "After World War II, Fischer re-evaluated his previous beliefs, and decided that the popular explanations of National Socialism offered by such historians as Friedrich Meinecke in which Adolf Hitler was just a Betriebsunfall (an 'occupational accident', meaning 'a spanner in the works') of history were unacceptable.[2]"

3. "In the 1950s, Fischer examined the Imperial German government archives – such as were extant and available at the time – that related to the Great War.
   (This had previously been done by Karl Kautsky, Professor Walther Schucking and Count Max Montgelas and published at Charlottenburg in November 1919... "

4. "The American Klaus Epstein noted, when Fischer published his findings in 1961, that in his opinion Fischer instantly rendered obsolete every book previously published on the subject of responsibility for the First World War, and German aims in that war.[8]
   Fischer's own position on German responsibility for World War I has become known as the "Fischer thesis"."

5. "In 1961, Fischer, who by then had risen to the rank of full professor at the University of Hamburg, rocked the history profession with his first postwar book, Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegszielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War), in which he argued that Germany had deliberately instigated World War I in an attempt to become a world power.[4] "

6. "Fischer argued that the German government used the July Crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the summer of 1914 to act on plans for a war against the Dual Entente to create Mitteleuropa, a German-dominated Europe, and Mittelafrika, a German-dominated Africa.[9]
   Though Fischer argued that the German government did not want a war with the British Empire, they were ready to run the risk in pursuit of annexation and hegemony.[10]"

7. "In The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, Philip Bobbitt has written that after Fischer published it became "impossible to maintain" that World War I had been a "ghastly mistake" rather than the consequence of German policy.[11]"

8. "For most Germans, it was acceptable to believe that Germany had caused World War II, but not World War I, which was still widely regarded as a war forced upon Germany by its encircling enemies.
   Fischer was the first German historian to publish documents showing that the German chancellor Dr. Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg had made plans in September 1914 (after the war began) to annex all of Belgium, part of France and part of Russia.[4]
   Fischer suggested that there was continuity in German foreign policy from 1900 to the Second World War, implying that Germany was responsible for both world wars."

9. "The German elite that caused World War I was also responsible for the failure of the Weimar Republic, which opened the way for the Third Reich.
   This traditional German elite, in Fischer's analysis, was dominated by a racist, imperialist and capitalist ideology that was little different from the beliefs of the Nazis.[4]
   For this reason, Fischer called Bethmann Hollweg the "Hitler of 1914"."

10. "Fischer's arguments set off the so-called "Fischer Controversy" of the early 1960s when German historians led by Gerhard Ritter attempted to rebut Fischer.
    The Australian historian John Moses noted in 1999 that the documentary evidence introduced by Fischer is extremely persuasive in arguing that Germany was responsible for World War I.[4]
    In 1990, The Economist advised its readers to examine Fischer's "well documented" book to examine why people in Eastern Europe feared the prospect of German reunification.[12]"

11. "Fischer's discovery of Imperial German government documents advocating as a war aim the ethnic cleansing of Russian Poland and subsequent German colonization, to provide Germany with Lebensraum (living space) led many to argue that similar schemes pursued by the Nazis in World War II were not due solely to Adolf Hitler's ideas but rather reflected widely held German aspirations that long pre-dated Hitler.[10][13][14]

    Many German historians in the 1960s such as Gerhard Ritter who liked to argue that Hitler was just a Betriebsunfall of history with no real connection to German history, were outraged by Fischer's publication of these documents and attacked his work as "anti-German".[15]"

12. "Fischer's allegations caused a deep controversy throughout the academic world, particularly in West Germany.
    His arguments caused so much anger that his publisher's office in Hamburg was firebombed. "

13. "Many critics claim that Fischer placed Germany outside the proper historical context.
    They argue that Germany was not uniquely aggressive amongst European nations of the early 20th century, a time when Social Darwinist views of struggle were popular in Europe's ruling classes.
    Critics also contend that in the centuries following Columbus's voyages to America, the Western European countries including Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc. had already acquired vast overseas colonial possessions and spheres of influence long before German unification in 1871, so it is difficult to single out Germany alone as "grasping for world power" when this was a centuries-old Western European tradition."

Yes, we can fully acknowledge such critiques of Fischer and our need for appropriate "contextualizing".
However, none of that negates even a single word of Fischer's research.

BTW, my knowledge of Fischer's Thesis comes from this 2004 book by David Fromkin:

Nor have I read in these past 50 years even one new fact which contradicts a single thing Fischer himself reported.

What this means is -- claims Fischer was "anti-German" are a form of mental illness, an illness roughly equivalent in the American context to saying, if a historian reports accurately on American slavery, or "Manifest Destiny", that historian is "anti-American".

[Note: I am in no way validating lies & distortions found, for example, in the 1619 project]

Sorry, but no, the truth is true regardless of how much you may or may not loathe and despise it.

to x & DiogenesLamp -- I'm pinging you because of my very last remarks above 😊

[BroJoeK]

Reverend Wright: "How big would Erie Press have been in your day ?"

Big enough to supply my company with two presses for our Cleveland operation, which employed maybe 50 people.

Btw, the single biggest impression I had back then of the many companies I visited who had forging presses was how ancient those presses were, even then, some went back 100 years, many dated from the WWII era.

How many of those companies are still in business today, 30 years later, I have no clue, but fear the worst.

Bottom line: I think your evaluations cannot be just dismissed as exaggerations because likely there is considerable truth in them.

But my experience of 30 years in American manufacturing (1973 to 2003) is that, given reasonable lead times, our people can still ramp up to produce anything in whatever volumes are needed.
Of course that costs money, lots of money, and money only comes ultimately from customers' demands.

So, if there is truly to be a renaissance of American manufacturing, I'd love to be young enough again to be part of it.

[ZULU]

I love JD Vance but he is OFF the reservation with this. WE TRIED THAT - REMEMBER SUDETENLAND? YOU DON’T REWARD FASCIST
PIGS

[Menes]

Well, you might read Christopher Clark‘s book „the Sleepwalkers“, who provides counter-evidence, or the work of Hans Fenske, one of my academic teachers, „DerAnfang vom Ende des Alten Europa“, which has unfortunately never been translated into English.

And sorry, but a historian, who simply ignores evidence which is at odds with the narrative he tries to push, ceases to be a serious historian. That is what this POSCommunazi Fischer (yimach shemo ve zikhro ) did.

And I believe it would have been better if the Morgenthau Plan had been carried out - it is very much more in line with ordinary human behavior than anything else (yes, 95% of all humans are scum) At least, that might have been better that our fate nowadays.

And, now for the third time my little question: why have London and Paris not yet opened their archives on the topic of WW1 and the run-up to it? Are they afraid that something might turn up which contradicts the prevailing narrative, which you so fervently support?

[JonPreston]

Neocons have gone from, "as long as it takes" to "as long as we can"

what gives?

OOF

[BroJoeK]

Reverend Wright: "And there was also a big argument between the Kaiser and Moltke over the ability to change the direction of the mobilization exclusively toward the East.
The Kaiser wanted to avoid war with France."

Kaiser Wilhelm, on July 28, 1914 wanted to avoid war, period, and tried to stop Austrians from declaring war on Serbia, intending that he himself would negotiate a peace settlement between Austria and Serbia.
But Wilhelm's government was having none of it.

What the Kaiser wanted and what his High Command & government wanted were different things.
I think it's worth quoting what was going on inside the minds of German officials at the time.
And there's tons of data here, but I have to leave out 99% of it to stay focused on the main point.
From Fromkin's 2004 book, page 218:

"On the morning of July 28, Kaiser Wilhelm, who had returned from his cruise the day before, read -- for the first time -- the Serbian reply to Austria's note [ultimatum].
It persuaded him, he wrote in longhand to [German Foreign Minister Gottlieb von] Jagow at the foreign office, that Austria had gotten almost everything it wanted.
In his view it was "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind," and as a result, every cause for war falls to the ground."
A few sentences later he repeated himself, "every cause for war has vanished".

There was no longer any need to start a war.
In fact, according to Wilhelm, unlike [Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Count Leopold von] Berchtold "I would never have ordered a mobilization on that basis.

"Nevertheless, the piece of paper, like its contents, can be considered as of little value so long as it is not translated into deed.
The Serbs are Orientals, therefore liars, tricksters and masters of evasion."
So it should be agreed that the Austrian army would temporarily occupy a part of Serbia including Belgrade, as a hostage, until Serbia kept its word.
On that basis, wrote the Kaiser, "I am ready to mediate for peace."
This resolution of matters, would give the Hapsburg armies, once in possession of Belgrade, the satisfaction of appearing to have scored a success.
In mediating for peace, wrote Wilhelm, he would be careful to safeguard Austria-Hungary's honor and self-esteem.

"The Kaiser ordered Jagow to inform Vienna that he was prepared to mediate the Austria-Serbia conflict on the basis he described.
The Austrians were to be told that there no longer was any reason to go to war.
The Kaiser also notified [Chief of the Great German General Staff, Helmuth von] Moltke [the Younger], in writing, of the same conclusion.

As Christopher Clark, one of the Kaiser's recent biographers writes, "Perhaps the most striking thing about this letter to Jagow of July 28 is that it was not acted upon... His instructions to Jagow had no influence on Berlin's representations to Vienna.
[German Chancellor Theobald von] Bethmann [Hollweg] did cable Vienna, repeating some of Wilhelm's views, but omitting the most important one: that Austria should stop, not go to war, and let the Kaiser mediate the quarrel with Serbia instead."

A Bavarian general noted in his diary that there was "unfortunately...peaceful news.
The Kaiser absolutely wants peace...He even wants to influence Austria and to stop her continuing further."

According to [German] War Minister von Falkenhayn, the Kaiser "made confused speeches which give the clear impression that he no longer wants a war and is determined to [aviod it], even if it means leaving Austria-Hungary in the lurch."

But Falkenhayn reminded the Kaiser that he "no longer had control of affairs in his own hands."
In other circumstances, this would have seemed shockingly insubordinate.
But ever since the Daily Telegraph affair of 1908 the emperor's position had been precarious.
In May 1914, only two months before Falkenhayn's reminder, Edward House, President Wilson's envoy, had reported from Berlin that the "military oligarchy" were supreme, were "determined on war," and were prepared to "dethrone the Kaiser the moment he showed indications of taking a course that would lead to peace."
Of course, Wilhelm, whose grip on reality was fragile at best, may not have been fully alive to the perils of his position.
Alternatively, House may have exaggerated.

But there can be little doubt that much was going on of which the emperor was unaware.
Indeed, among the things that Wilhelm did not know was that, the day before, Jagow had cabled Viena urging -- indeed, practically ordering -- the Austrian government to declare war on Serbia immediately.
Jagow warned that the English proposal for a conference to keep the peace could not be resisted much longer.
The German foreign minister neither consulted the Kaiser before sending this warning nor informed him afterwards that it had been done.

In Austria, too, a reluctant monarch was gotten around.
Emperor Franz Joseph was hesitant about declaring war, and his ministers were obliged to obtain his assent in order to do so.
Berchtold obtained that assent by reporting -- falsely -- that Serbian troops had opened fire on Austrian forces.
Actually -- and it was only one isolated incident -- it was Austrian troops who fired on Serbs..."

So this history goes on and on, page after page, in the same vein -- the Kaiser, the Austrian Emperor, did not want a major war, but were overruled by their governments.
In the case of the German Chief of Staff Gen. Moltke, it was literally impossible to change mobilization plans, to make them only directed towards Russia.
Since 1913, Moltke had directed the plans be updated to require launching first at France before turning on Russia.
There were no "Russia only" plans.

Reverend Wright: "So again I go back to the question: What does the July Crisis look like without the Franco-Russian Alliance ?"

And again I report to you, accurately, that it would have changed nothing because Germany had for decades assumed any war with Russia or France would draw the other in also, and so their Schlieffen Plan was designed to defeat both countries, France first.

Reverend Wright: "Fact is, the Franco-Russian alliance encouraged Russia to be more belligerent, and it expanded a Balkan War into a continent wide war."

Again, I'm saying all that is irrelevant because what the German High Command needed was only a pretext, not a genuine threat of war.
They were on a hair-trigger to declare war and launch the Schlieffen Plan, for any reason at all, or no real reason, if necessary, they'd concoct something, just as the Austrians did.

Reverend Wright: "Here is an example of provocative behavior that NATO membership encourages with small countries.
A play in three acts."

I don't see anything major going on in your 3-Act Play.
NATO simply reminded Russia that its own sovereignty over Kaliningrad was not really 100% and could be challenged anytime.
Of course, Russians didn't like it:

"Russia was enraged when Lithuania banned the transit of steel and other ferrous metals under EU sanctions last month, and threatened to respond.
But now Lithuanian Railways says it will resume transporting goods to the exclave."

No big deal, Lithuania made its point, that Russia too can be highly vulnerable.

Reverend Wright: "I think that was the closest we got to NATO entering this war."

Naw... there's no way Vald the Invader wants to go to war against NATO when he can't handle the one war he already has against Ukraine.

The entire incident was simply a warning from the European Union and NATO to Vlad that Russia itself can be highly vulnerable to economic sanctions.

[Menes]

Sorry again, but for another work on WW1 I can recommend Margaret MacMillan’s book “The War that ended Peace”, which is critical towards all of the Powers in 1914.

It is indeed a fascinating and scholarly work.

I haven’t read Fromkin’s book, which you have been quoting, but I’ve read critiques that it is rather biased.

Needless to say, neocon (= always Germanophobic and Russophobic) organs like New Criterion, The Wilson Quarterly and Foreign Affairs praised it (even though the WQ had some reserves), but German critics were not so enthusiastic:

Volker Ullrich, a pupil of Fritz Fischer, btw (and just as politically biased), was not too satisfied with Frumkin’s work: he considered the theses of Frumkin too farfetched - and he didn’t like the presentation of the July Crisis in form of a “diary” for dramatic effect. In Ullrich’s opinion this “diary effect” was not really helpful for the factual analysis of the events in the July crisis.

His biggest criticism was, however, the fact that Fromkin used no German (primary) sources at all, quoting only from English ones, which were often a bit lacking in scholarliness.

Klaus Hildebrand, another historian, was very disappointed with Fromkin’s book: he also considers the author’s theses unconvincing, especially that the war had not been caused by the crisis in the Balkans.

Furthermore, Hildebrand considered Fr.s statements generally “rather disjointed, superficial and laborious”.

Another criticism was that Fromkin distinguishes too little between important and less important points, as well as - worst of all - employing far too little scholarly literature as sources ( similar to Ullrich).

So much about that.

[x]

I learned in school that Britain allied with France and Russia because of the German threat, but that’s not quite true. Britain moved close to France and Russia because it feared war with France or Russia over colonial claims in Africa and Asia. Britain probably should have moved closer to Germany later, but by that time it was already too close to France. Of course, it might not have done any good. The Germans were determined to make use of their new power and were hostile to Britain.

But still, a lot of things I’d heard in school are a little questionable. Germany’s plan for a Berlin to Baghdad railroad was seen as a threat to peace, while Britain’s plan for a Cairo to the Cape railroad across Africa wasn’t. The Kaiser’s sending a telegram to the Boer leader congratulating him for defeating a British sponsored raid was regarded as a provocation, while Britain’s crushing of the Boers to get South Africa’s gold and diamonds was just the way things were.

Yes, a case can be made that Germany wanted war in 1914 and turned a regional conflict into a continental and ultimately global one. But I think much of Germany’s behavior in the years leading up to the war was trying to do things that Britain and France had already done and regarded as their own rights. When you are the leading global power, as the United Kingdom was, it’s easy to regard anyone who acts in ways that you act yourself as a threat not just to your own power but to world peace and global order.

[BroJoeK]

Menes: "Sorry again, but for another work on WW1 I can recommend Margaret MacMillan’s book “The War that ended Peace”, which is critical towards all of the Powers in 1914.
It is indeed a fascinating and scholarly work."

Of course, it's easy to be critical and doubtless all deserve some criticism.
But the fact remains that except for the Kaiser and his government, all were responding to German threats and actions.
All through June, July and August, 1914, the German Government pushed Austria into war with Serbia and then launched its own Schlieffen plan against France and Russia.

One important detail Fromkin's book shows us is that, at the very moment of crisis, July 28, 1914, the Kaiser himself wanted to back away from war and negotiate a peace between Austria and Serbia, but his orders were disobeyed by his own officials, notably:

1. Chancellor Bethmann
2. Foreign minister Jagow
3. War Minister Falkenhayn
4. Chief of the General Staff von Moltke (the Younger)

In von Moltke's case, when the Kaiser told him to change the Schlieffen plan and send all German forces against Russia, von Moltke claimed the plan could not be changed without creating logistical and tactical chaos (page 140 in my edition).

In Austria it was no different -- Foreign minister Berchtold got the reluctant Emperor Franz Joseph's approval for a declaration of war on Serbia by lying to the emperor about a border incident in which Austrian troops fired on Serbs.

All of these are matters of historical fact, not some "far-fetched theses".

Menes: "Volker Ullrich, a pupil of Fritz Fischer, btw (and just as politically biased), was not too satisfied with Frumkin’s work: he considered the theses of Frumkin too farfetched"

I have no idea what "theses" he considers "too farfetched", I'm talking about simple historical facts based on documents in various archives.

Menes: "Klaus Hildebrand, another historian, was very disappointed with Fromkin’s book: he also considers the author’s theses unconvincing, especially that the war had not been caused by the crisis in the Balkans."

If that's truly what your historian Hildebrand said, then he didn't bother to read Fromkin's book, and was simply throwing out trash-talk.
In fact, there is no possible way to tell the story of 1914 without focusing on the central actions in the Balkins.
That said, none of those Balkan actors declared war on Russia or France, or invaded Luxembourg and Belgium, and those are the actions which turned a local dispute into a World War.

By the way, it's kind of important to remember that by the time Germany began declaring war on its neighbors, the Kaiser already well understood that Britain would come to the defense of Belgium and France.
Full well knowing, the Kaiser chose to declare war anyway, saying:

"For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves — knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria — to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us ...
Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honourable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe, i.e., playing off all European States for her own benefit against us.[72]"

All of the Kaiser's words here are lies and nonsense, but they prove WWI was not an accident!

Menes: "Furthermore, Hildebrand considered Fr.s statements generally “rather disjointed, superficial and laborious”."

I consider such words to be mere trash-talk, of no value in any conversation, and hopefully not typical of what passes for scholarship in academia these days.

Menes: "Another criticism was that Fromkin distinguishes too little between important and less important points, as well as - worst of all - employing far too little scholarly literature as sources ( similar to Ullrich)."

And still more trash-talk about Fromkin's book, which was written for a popular audience -- like yours truly, BroJoeK -- in English, which I understand rather well, rather than in German, which I nicht verstehen so gut.

And, again, none of that matters for our purposes here, because we are only reviewing the facts, not "farfetched theses" or "scholarly literature".

Of course, who knows, perhaps these days not everybody is as concerned with mere facts as I am?

[JonPreston]

BBC about Nazi groups in Ukraine 8 years ago - you all knew it - NATO pumped those Bandera scum up with money and weapons - to bring Russia down - you lost - and all those groups will be erased from the face of the earth - all of them - and I hope "EU" and "NATO" will go to shit… pic.twitter.com/wvpuYecxD2— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) December 18, 2023

[BroJoeK]

Menes: "Menes": "And I believe it would have been better if the Morgenthau Plan had been carried out - it is very much more in line with ordinary human behavior than anything else (yes, 95% of all humans are scum)
At least, that might have been better that our fate nowadays."

Your view that "95% of all humans are scum" is grossly inconsistent with American conservative Christian values, as championed by Free Republic.

Morgenthau's Plan: first proposed in September 1944, Morgenthau's plan was somewhat influential until 1947, but was never adopted as policy.

"An investigation by Herbert Hoover concluded the plan was unworkable, and would result in up to 25 million Germans dying from starvation.[5]
From 1947, US policies aimed at restoring a "stable and productive Germany" and were soon followed by the Marshall Plan.[3][6]"

Aside from humanitarian concerns for the German people, which were genuine, the Western Allies were also increasingly fearful of Soviet Communist influences and expansionism.
These concerns led to, among other things:

1. The 1948 Marshall Plan, $17 billion (about $1.5 trillion in today's dollars).

2. The 1949 NATO alliance

3. The 1951-1961 Mutual Security Act, $75 billion over 10 years (circa $4.5 trillion total today)

Marshall Plan expenditures, $17 billion total, roughly $1.5 trillion in today's dollar equivalents:

[Menes]

There definitely were elements of that. The well established Colonial powers resented the „newcomer“ in their midst.

„The Gods do bear and will allow in kings
The things which they abhor in rascal routes“ could have been their mindset (i don‘t know the author of this proverb 🙂)

And yes, the behavior of the Imperial government were wrong, in hindsight. There simply was competition between the Great powes.

But what should Germany gain?

France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back - the fact that it had been conquered from the Old Reich, i.e. Germany in the 17th century, was conveniently forgotten.

Russia needed a military success after the defeat againstJapan.

Britain felt threatened by german naval expansion, and always watched the Belgian coast carefully. There was a fear (unfounded) of an invasion from the Continent.

Serbian politicians dreamed of Greater Serbia, Italians of Austro-Hungarian territories etc.

All had a dog in the race, one way or the other.

Lastly, we don‘t know the discussion within the governments in London, Paris and St. Petersburg, as well as Belgrade. The acts are still sealed.

Thus, we have no clue what went on „on the other side“ in the run-up to the disaster. I know that theFrench press, for the most part, was itching for a showdown, and so were some people there.

For instance, when the Great Prize of France was won by German driver C. Lautenschlager in July 14, he was pelted with stones by French „fans“, and when French socialist leader Jean Jaurˋes pleaded with the governments of the world to prevent a war, he was shot on July 31st in broad daylight by a French pro-war chauvinist.

Still, Germany was indicted after the war in order to pay the reparations. Wilson, in 1919 admonished the French to maintain the principle of „ forget everything“ which had been the standard since the Thirty years War, as not to impede future improvements in bilateral relations - but was ignored, alas.

[Menes]

Yes, and I am grateful.

It is always funny, though, when some British of today grumble that West Germany was given Marshall plan aid, too.

They forget that Britain received the aid as a gift, and WG as a loan. Maybe this is not taught in British schools. Regrettably. 🙁

The World Wars were the West‘s greatest triumph: getting rid of a competitor and enslaving him through Uno, Nato and Hell on Earth, the EU.

Still, we Germans have one hope: ultimately, we always got rid of our enemies in the end:

The Roman Empire: gone.
The Hunnish empire: gone.
The Vikings: gone.
The Magyar threat: gone.
The Ottoman Empire: gone.
The French imperialists from Louis XIV, the Bandit King, to Napoleon: gone.
The British Empire: gone
The Soviet Union: gone.
The American empire: ?

I would decide to end this debate now, since it has derailed the thread, and you, Sir, are not willing to doubt the veracity of the books you have read.

In historical research these days, everything is ideology. In Germany, our official historiographers are all Quislings to the „Westerners“, as they never would have had a career in academia otherwise.

It is the USSR redux.

Still, the day is coming into sight when the Anti-German neocommunist FRG will run out of money to feed the millions of parasites, invaders or not (socialism works fine until you run out of other people’s money, as M. Thatcher once said) - and nobody knows what will follow the breakdown.