andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2005 14:35:24 GMT -5
History proves many times that the victor of a certain conflict writes their version of what took place. World War I is another instance of the victors writing how they are guiltless of the making of WWI.
The first blow would fall by the Germans in Belgium but it was the war plans known as mobilization that truly sparked the war. The plans revolved around time: It took two weeks for a division formed in Bavaria to load onto trains with supplies and reach their jump off point in Brussels. The first army would have already taken Brussels and the Bavarian boys would spearhead the attack into France. Within one month later they would be in Paris.
These plans grew into huge systems where the slightest mistake would reap costly setbacks. The Belgians did not surrender but held up in Fort Liege and tied up a significant portion of the German Army. It is argued that this setback if avoided could have been enough time to sack Paris before the French could have mustered a defense on the Marne. So the seriousness of the time of these mobilizations is quite important.
With that in mind... ...The Arch duke Ferdinand of Austria is killed June 28, 1914. Austria wants to invade Serbia, one of its provinces and punish those who killed the kings only heir. Not only was the assassin affiliated with the Black Hand but also had ties to the Serbian government. Austria asks Germany for it's backing, and it is granted. Austria sends an ultimatum to the Serbians that unless they comply Austria will invade. The Serbians ask the Russians for assistance. The Russians agree and tell the Serbians to reject the Ultimatum. The Serbians tell the Austrians that they will honor all of the claims except one, which states the Austrians have rights to send their own investigation into Serbia with governmental authority. Austria declares that this response is unacceptable and invades Serbia. Russia, provoked by the French, begins a partial mobilization.
Now we go back to plans. The Austrians sent their army to their sphere of influence per the Congress of Berlin, which can be illustrated like parent disciplining their child. But Russia's partial mobilization calls for massing on the Austrian border. Which would bring Germany into the conflict to protect their ally. Now, Germany estimates that Russia will take 14 weeks to mobilize (they actually accomplish it a lot sooner) so the German mobilization concentrates on defeating France first and then dealing with the hordes from the East.
The German plan revolves around when the Russians will reach Prussia and they do not intend to let Russia have ahead start. The German government contacts the Romanov's of Russia and demands that the mobilization be called off. The Russians do not comply. Germany mobilizes and attacks Belgium.
When the Russian's do show up near Prussia they are dealt with severely by Ludendorf and Hindenburg at the Battle of Tannenberg~!
Was it truly Germany's aggression that started this war or was it Russian? Did Russia escape fault simply by being allied with France and England?
Comments, Questions, Additions...
|
|
|
Post by Tardy on May 17, 2005 3:57:40 GMT -5
They were all to blame because they all made decisions that they knew could result in war. Germanies decision was perhaps the most decisive though becuase Austria wouldn't have dared risk war with Russia if they didn't have German help. And while Russia was risking war as well, it is notable that Russia was coming to the aid of an ally attacked while Germany was essentially encouraging aggression. Noone blamed Russia, Austria or Turkey at this point becuase there was nothing more they could take off these collapsed powers.
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on May 18, 2005 8:41:36 GMT -5
Well I will agree that everyone was to blame. Nationalism had sparked so much love for ones country everyone looked toward the glorious war as a chance for their country to prove its worth.
I would not say that Germany's decision was the most decisive because Russia had already begun mobilizing.
You are correct that Austria was afraid of Russia and they had every reason to be. Russia had been expanding uncontrollably to the East causing the Russo/Japan War and in the South causing the Crimean war. Russia latest AGGRESSIVE move was their agenda to get access to the Mediterranean. They really wanted to use their satellite Serbia for this purpose. However, After the second Balkan war the Great powers met at the Congress of Berlin and created a new state, Albania, which took away Serbia's Mediterranean access and thwarted Russia's plan. Also the Congress gave western Balkan states to be Austria's influence sphere and the Eastern to Russia. The Austrians did not lean on the Serbians as much as the Ottomans and in fact they brought modern farming equipment and the latest technology in many other fields as well.
However the Serbians would not have the Austrian yoke, helpful or not and staged a huge campaign to undermine Austrian influence. Terrorism against anything Austrian was common and government sponsored. The last straw to the Austrians was the assignation of the King's only male son and heir to his family’s lineage! The Austrians had every right to smash Belgrade! But Russia’s agenda to expand to the Mediterranean complicated the situation. The day the news of the killing reached Vienna the Austrians should have attacked Serbia.
The Germans understood that rapidly ending the situation was the best way to avoid war. The Serbians used delaying tactics and Russia pawned Serbia into the Lions den. Also, adding to the Mix French hoping to keep Germany occupied in the East pushed Russia into the aggressive action!
Russia was not coming to the aid of an ally; they were trying to fulfill an aggressive expansion policy.
Austria was not considered an aggressor either because they were retaliating from Serbian attacks that had been going on for a numbers of years escalating to the killing of the King to be!
The most logical reason Germany was blamed was because the Allies believed Germany to be a huge threat, even defeated! The only way that France could keep Germany from returning to France, in French minds, was to keep their economy weak, military weak, and surrounded by strong countries. With Germany blamed as the aggressor all of this could be forced on the Germans!
|
|
|
Post by Tardy on May 19, 2005 1:08:55 GMT -5
Yes, but the whole issue is not who mobilised first, but who started a World War lasting 4 years and engulfing a continent or two. Russia's involvment was justifiable according to internationsal law (but by no means morally justified). Had Germany not joined the fray, it would have been a footnote of history, two archaic empires fighting each other in the backwaters of Europe. Germany dragged in the rest of Europe by getting involved. This is not a moral argument, just a matter of cause and effect. And whenever the Versailles treaty is spoken about it is always forgotten just how much real damage Germany did to the countriside of both Belgium and France.
Ps. Your good to argue with.
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on May 19, 2005 9:57:40 GMT -5
Well, the number one reason that the war started would have to be the mobilization schedules that every country had one in place. I explained this in my original post. Russia mobilized first forcing Germany to respond. Let me ask you this...
If Russian mobilization could take place in 6 weeks and Germany's took 10. say that Germany mobilizes first but Russia attacks first because faster mobilization. Who would be to blame in that scenario?
Had Germany not joined the fray... Well Germany was trying to prop up their ally who, like you said, was a failing monarchy. Italy was an ally but a distant one and with less power then Austria. So Germany being surrounded by enemies had better help out their one and only ally to what ever end!
Well I strongly believe that Russia was the aggressor and that they actually pulled the trigger. However, I believe way in the background England engineered the entire situation. Not specifically sparking the war, but keeping Russia and France as allies and making them even more paranoid of Germany then they already were. Where do you think England fits into the cause of the War?
|
|
|
Post by Tardy on May 19, 2005 21:01:08 GMT -5
Well without the BEF in western Europe France would simply not have been able to hold. And of all the countries involved England had the most to gain from a costly continental war. It would not surprise me if Russia was given a secret garuntee by England (as well as a promise to keep Japan quiet). But this is just conjecture.
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on May 20, 2005 8:29:34 GMT -5
I agree, France could not hold without the BEF. If England had hesitated, longer than their excuse of violated Belgium neutrality, to get involved and were not present in the city of Mons France would have fallen. I have not seen any evidence of England promising the Entente anything, however I would not be surprised if secret negotiations had taken place.
The main reason behind the assumption of English political maneuvering was their hatred for the High Seas Fleet. I have an essay on the Battle of Jutland that expresses this point in full detail. When the rest of the site comes back up I hope you will check it out!
|
|
|
Post by Ade D on Nov 5, 2005 19:30:13 GMT -5
I'm not inclined to fully agree with the above. I think the question of Austrian war guilt needs to be raised. What were they thinking! Its understandable that they would wish to seek recompence for Sarajevo - but given the existing alliance structures in Europe and Russia's acknowledged interest in the Balkans and Serbia they took one huge risk, gambling that assertive action with strong German support would not bring about a general European war via the alliance systems. They were wrong and the outcome was fatal to the venerable Austro-Hungarian Empire and Catastrophic to Europe.
I'm not sure Russia had many options open without further seriously weakening their position. They had been outplayed by Austria in 1909 (from memory) over Bosnia and had recently lost their principle Balkan ally Bulgaria, granted due mainly to their own diplomatic ineptness.
Germany's political and miitary leadership seems to have been taken by a sense of fatalism - that war was coming and it was best to get it over with sooner while Germany's military advantage viv-a-vis France and Russia remained strong. The secret talks between the Dual alliance partners and the timing of the ultimatum to coincide with the French political leadership's departure from St Petersburg seem to confirm the view that even if they were not spoiling for a fight they were certainly looking to challenge the Entente diplomatically. This was a high stakes power game and neither side could walk away from the pot, but it was the dual alliance partners who raised the an'te in the final bidding round.
|
|
|
Post by Ade D on Nov 5, 2005 19:32:05 GMT -5
I'm not inclined to fully agree with the above. I think the question of Austrian war guilt needs to be raised. What were they thinking! Its understandable that they would wish to seek recompence for Sarajevo - but given the existing alliance structures in Europe and Russia's acknowledged interest in the Balkans and Serbia they took one huge risk, gambling that assertive action with strong German support would not bring about a general European war via the alliance systems. They were wrong and the outcome was fatal to the venerable Austro-Hungarian Empire and Catastrophic to Europe.
I'm not sure Russia had many options open without further seriously weakening their position. They had been outplayed by Austria in 1909 (from memory) over Bosnia and had recently lost their principle Balkan ally Bulgaria, granted due mainly to their own diplomatic ineptness.
Germany's political and miitary leadership seems to have been taken by a sense of fatalism - that war was coming and it was best to get it over with sooner while Germany's military advantage viv-a-vis France and Russia remained strong. The secret talks between the Dual alliance partners and the timing of the ultimatum to coincide with the French political leadership's departure from St Petersburg seem to confirm the view that even if they were not spoiling for a fight they were certainly looking to challenge the Entente diplomatically. This was a high stakes power game and neither side could walk away from the pot, but it was the dual alliance partners who raised the an'te in the final bidding round.
|
|
|
Post by fghfgh on Aug 9, 2007 18:26:57 GMT -5
|
|