Causes for 1st World War - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Rich
#14506852
redcarpet wrote:Yes it was, the Kaiser wanted to annex Belgium, remember. We have his correspondence to prove it. He particularly liked it being described to him as a prospective 'vassal'.
And why's that so wrong. Ireland's independence was curtailed even after 1922. It didn't even have home rule in 1914. We're talking about a customs union and railway integration, we're not talking about Germany treating Belgians the way poor little Belgium treated the Congo. Britain, France, Russia and the United States had taken over most of the rest of the world. Germany's trade was at the mercy of these imperial expansionism, war monger navies. Germany had tried to build top class navy but had been out spent by the anti German British empire builders who thought they had a God given right to rule the world.

How in God's name did the British ever manage to portray the Germans as the megalomaniacs? The German's only resort was to try and improve their position on the Continent. Lets also remember that the American war warmongering expansionist aggressors had just gobbled up Hawaii. They would have like to turn Japan into a vassal state, but the Japanese didn't play to the native stereotype. How Russia (the prison house of nations), France, Britain, The US and Belgium got to lecture Germany on self determination is as I've said quite beyond belief.

The aggressors had taken over virtually the whole of the rest of the world. They were in the process of eating up the Ottoman Empire and China the last significant bits of land left. It was Italy that fired the starting gun in 1911 on the final destruction of the Ottomans.
#14506857
The US and Belgium got to lecture Germany on self determination is as I've said quite beyond belief.


Quite simple really. The rule was that european borders were basically fixed and white people were off limits.

Brown people were all fair game and germans were late to the party.
By Rich
#14506941
The US and Belgium got to lecture Germany on self determination is as I've said quite beyond belief.

layman wrote:Quite simple really. The rule was that european borders were basically fixed and white people were off limits.

Brown people were all fair game and germans were late to the party.
In August 1914 Germany wasn't trying to change the borders of Belgium. They just asked to cross the southern strip. I can't find the details at the moment but this possibility had been considered in Britain some years earlier and had been considered acceptable. As for White people being off limits. Serbia's Albanian campaign in 1912 was semi genocidal. Germany was defending the status Quo in 1914 not trying to overthrow it. Lets also remember that the 1871 border settlement was very generous to France. France had made huge territorial acquisitions at the expense of Germany since the partition of Burgundy.
#14506969
In August 1914 Germany wasn't trying to change the borders of Belgium. They just asked to cross the southern strip. I can't find the details at the moment but this possibility had been considered in Britain some years earlier and had been considered acceptable.


Britains entry into the war was actually a close run thing. The final push appears to have been that we felt we just couldnt sit and not take a side. It was a strange one but it certainly wasnt instigated by Britiain like so many pro-germans seem to think.

As for White people being off limits. Serbia's Albanian campaign in 1912 was semi genocidal.


The balklands were barely considered white. Sort of like the Irish. Albanians would probably be seen a low beings even by balkland standards. Many newspapers in Britain at the time scoffed at the idea of kicking up a fuss over such inferiors. Jingoism took hold quite rapidly though.

Germany was defending the status Quo in 1914 not trying to overthrow it.


A very pro german take on things. Many in germany were keen for a scrap though I am not claiming they wanted to conquer the world or anything. The hawkish-militant faction was powerful though.

Lets also remember that the 1871 border settlement was very generous to France. France had made huge territorial acquisitions at the expense of Germany since the partition of Burgundy.


I agree it was pretty generous though its not like others would have sat by and allowed france to be annexed. The "partition of Burgundy" obviously predates the german nation (in any modern sense of the word).

No argument from me that france had always (and was still) very aggresive. Britain was too but only outside europe in terms of land ambitions.
#14507130
Rich wrote:How on earth was German imperialism to blame?

Germany tried to expand on the continent because GB prevented German expansion overseas. All parties that did have the means to expand did expand. Germany certainly had the industrial means to expand, but not overseas. It's like corporate takeovers today, either you eat or you are eaten.

Was German desire to expand or consolidate understandable? Probably, even though, after Hitler and the holocaust few would concede so today. Prior to German unification in the 19th century, the small and powerless German states had been ravaged numerous times by foreign armies. German unification and the consecutive imperialism was simply a response to French and British imperialism.

Germany was not seeking expansion just seeking to support Austria against regicidal terrorists.

It is well established that the Germans used the Sarajevo incident as a pretext to initiate hostilities because they thought that they had to strike at the Franco/Russian alliance before it got too strong. They gambled that GB wouldn't enter the war because the British attitude had been very ambiguous.

Let's not forget, in 1914 nobody could have known that they were facing two catastrophic World wars. 1914 was just another of numerous continental wars European sovereigns were fight all the time as a matter of routine. Everybody believed that "the boys will be back home by Christmas." It is only GB's entry into the war that made it a World war.

Serbia acted as it did because it had a blank check form Russia.

The problem was that the Serbian government had lost control over its military and the Serbian militias that were executing terrorists missions abroad. The Serbian PM at the time actually tried to prevent the assassination. But the assassin had already crossed the border and the Austrians didn't take his warning seriously.

redcarpet wrote:Yes it was, the Kaiser wanted to annex Belgium, remember. We have his correspondence to prove it. He particularly liked it being described to him as a prospective 'vassal'.

That's nonsense. The Kaiser was mentally unstable because of a birth defect and his ministers had a hell of a time keeping him from interfering in the affairs of state as he would hedge one crazy plot after the other.

Rich wrote:The aggressors had taken over virtually the whole of the rest of the world. They were in the process of eating up the Ottoman Empire and China the last significant bits of land left. It was Italy that fired the starting gun in 1911 on the final destruction of the Ottomans.

It never ceases to amaze how the British accuse everyone of expansionism after having expanded like no other nation before.

German imperialism is dead. Anglo Imperialism is alive and kicking. Some things never change.

Rich wrote:August 1914 Germany wasn't trying to change the borders of Belgium. They just asked to cross the southern strip. I can't find the details at the moment but this possibility had been considered in Britain some years earlier and had been considered acceptable.

Both the French and the British had plans to use Belgium for a military buildup. The Germans just beat them to it. So it served as a convenient pretext for the British to join the war. The Germans needed a quick victory in the West so as to concentrate their forces in the East.
By Rich
#14507135
Atlantis wrote:It is well established that the Germans used the Sarajevo incident as a pretext to initiate hostilities because they thought that they had to strike at the Franco/Russian alliance before it got too strong.
Its a well rehearsed lie. The Serbians imitated hostilities with the assassination because they had the blank check from Russia, which itself had a blank check from France. Austria declared war on Serbia and then Russia mobilised. Once Russia mobilised all historians except that Germany had no choice but to attack France in a desperate attempt to knock out France before Russia could bring its vast armies to bear.

How does this become the Germans initiated hostilities? Even the Bulgarians, although Slavs recognised the evil nature of Serbia and its Russian backers. In 1914 there was little support for the Serbs amongst Austro-Hungry's Croats, let alone the Albanians or Bosnians.
#14507137
"The Austrians were at the end of their tether dealing with Serbia"?

And what exactly had the Serbs done? It's very unclear the exact involvement Serbian government /military in the assassination. But before that what else had the Serbs done to make the Austrians to be at the End of their tether,? This implies there was a whole series of outrages. Which I dont think is true.

"Both the French and the British had plans to use Belgium for a military buildup."

False. The French Military wanted to invade Belgium once there was war with Germany, but the Political leadership forbade it. In Germany the political leadership didn't have the control of the military to stop them.

Britain and France were propping up the Ottoman Empire, their policy had to prevent the dissolution as that was viewed as huge potential for conflict. They were trying to prop it up not tear it down.

While Britain and France were major Imperialist powers they did not start ww1. German, Austrian actions started the war. They chose to use military means, to decline any negotiated settlement. Russia chose to defend Serbia. France had no choice, Britain chose to defend Belgium/support France.

Germany and Austria were the aggressors in 1914. Clear fact. They chose to resort to military force to change the situation. Everyone else was willing to use military force to maintain the status quo..
#14507278
pugsville wrote:And what exactly had the Serbs done? It's very unclear the exact involvement Serbian government /military in the assassination. But before that what else had the Serbs done to make the Austrians to be at the End of their tether,? This implies there was a whole series of outrages. Which I dont think is true.

But this is exactly what did happen: there was a whole series of outrages. The Serbian Black Hand terrorists (with the support of the Serbian military) was a state within the state. They had established the dynasty by slaying in cold blood the entire family of the previous king in a night raid on the palace. Then they systematically sponsored and perpetrated terrorist attacks in neighboring countries to create a greater Serbia.

As a matter of fact, the Austrians had more cause to invade Serbia than the US had to invade Afghanistan.

Anwyasy, the various ethnic groups in the Balkans did not want to be ruled by the Serbs in 1914 just like they do not want to be ruled by the Serbs today. In 1914, life was a lot better under enlightened Austrian rule and even under tolerant Ottoman rule than under the Serbs, which were an impoverished and backward agrarian nation that could only rule by terror.

Britain and France were propping up the Ottoman Empire, their policy had to prevent the dissolution as that was viewed as huge potential for conflict.

I see, Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire in order to "prevent its dissolution"? We can only marvel at your creative interpretation of history.

Germany and Austria were the aggressors in 1914.

You are still a victim of war propaganda 100 years after the fact. Everybody expanded in those days, and none more so than the British.

Russian expansion in the Far East was checked by the Japanese. Russian expansion into central Asia was checked by the British and French (the British and French fought the Russians in Sevastopol in what is known as the first trench warfare in history). Their only way of expanding was into Slavic territories in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans. That is why they supported the Serbs and that is why they clashed with the Austro-Hungarians.

The war did not start in 1914. It was constant war in those days. There wasn't a single year in which the British didn't fight one war or another.

Clearly, Anglo Imperialism was the primary cause for conflict in 1914 as it is today.
Last edited by Atlantis on 06 Jan 2015 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14507279
Atlantis wrote:Russian expansion in the Far East was checked by the Japanese.

Correct.

I was watching this thread the whole time wondering if you'd ever realise that. You made lost of noise at ThirdTerm over the annexation of Korea, but the annexation of Korea was primarily to block Russia from being able to gain a foothold in the Korean peninsula.

People often pretend to forget that Japan was a rational actor, and wasn't just annexing things for its own amusement.
#14507280
Rei Murasame wrote:People often pretend to forget that Japan was a rational actor, and wasn't just annexing things for its own amusement.

I don't agree with the rational of imperialism. It will always be self-defeating in the end.

It is true, however, that Japan was the only non-Western country to effectively resist the European colonial conquest. And since European powers expanded into China, it is understandable that Japan too tried to get a piece of the cake. The sin of the Japanese was that they weren't white ;-)
#14507281
Atlantis wrote:I don't agree with the rational of imperialism. It will always be self-defeating in the end.

If I try to kill someone, there's a chance that I may or may not succeed at it. If I don't try in the first place, then I automatically fail.

The only thing that is guaranteed to be self-defeating, is a refusal to initiate force.

Atlantis wrote:It is true, however, that Japan was the only non-Western country to effectively resist the European colonial conquest. And since European powers expanded into China, it is understandable that Japan too tried to get a piece of the cake. The sin of the Japanese was that they weren't white ;-)

Not only that, but the Russians had a reputation that preceded them.

The Russian Empire obliterated whole Asian indigenous population groups from the face of the earth in Siberia (whole ethnic groups could not be found after Russia had been through, because they'd just kill literally everyone in a town and then repeat on the next one), annexed Kamchatka and obliterated the people there in an organised campaign of extermination, and then repeated the same attacks against the Aleutians. They also removed whole Mongolian bloodlines from existence, and reduced the Central Asians to - literally - cotton-picking slaves, and drove the Circassians literally into the sea.

This is the environment in which Japan was supposed to be making choices regarding Russia in 1904.

The Japanese people would quite logically consider it an obligation to kick Russia in the face as soon as possible. It has always seemed strange to me that the Russian Empire is afforded some kind of 'noble' status by the anti-imperialists, even though they were openly provoking people. When Russia started to make overtures toward Korea, that would have obviously sent off alarm bells in Japan.
#14507283
"But this is exactly what did happen: there was a whole series of outrages. "
"Then they systematically sponsored and perpetrated terrorist attacks in neighboring countries to create a greater Serbia."ai

which ones? have you details? and how many against Austria? To be at the end of their theer there would have to be a number of attacks on Austrian Soil.
#14507288
Rei Murasame wrote:If I try to kill someone, there's a chance that I may or may not succeed at it. If I don't try in the first place, then I automatically fail.

From an old warmonger like you, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Yet it is exactly that sort of thinking that got us into the mess.

The Germans had plenty of other options. War is always the worst and very last option. They could have allied with the Russians, they could even have allied with the French or with the British. The primary conflict was between Russian expansionism and British and French colonialism.

It is a testimony to the stupidity of Germany's feudal elite at the time that they failed to achieve a better outcome for the country by diplomatic means. By the end of the 19th century, Germany had become the leading scientific and industrial country in the world. The country, until the present day, never fully recovered from the failure of the imbecile Kaiser and ignorant aristocrats that drove the country into ruin.

The Russian Empire obliterated whole Asian indigenous population groups from the face of the earth in Siberia ...

Oh, pleeease! Spare us the war propaganda. The Russians are far too messy and unorganized to be any good as the terminators you make them look like. The Japanese were a lot more efficient at obliterating the natives. And they put a lot more zeal into it too.

No, there was nothing nice about Japanese militarism.
#14507290
It has always seemed strange to me that the Russian Empire is afforded some kind of 'noble' status by the anti-imperialists


I have noticed this a lot recently.

left-socialists and communists seem to have no problem with tsarist Russia returning because they all grew up worshiping the soviet empire and stalin.

It is one thing to call BS on the west as being hypocrites - Fair enough - but the lengths they go to justify putin-style imperialism is incredible. They also whitewash the history of how russia got its empire while squeeling about the US conquest of the natives of that continent or the British in Africa.

I suppose when you cross some water to do the same thing it makes all the difference. Maybe if Russia had ever made a decent navy ..
#14507294
Atlantis wrote:From an old warmonger like you, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Yet it is exactly that sort of thinking that got us into the mess.

Given that I'm only going to reach 29 years old next week, I'd consider myself to still be a young warmonger.

Also, it's not my kind of thinking that got you into a 'mess', it's the fact that you lose the battle which got you into the mess. The moral of the story is not to stop fighting, but to plan better and stop losing.

Atlantis wrote:The Germans had plenty of other options. War is always the worst and very last option.

I have no idea why you would think this.

Atlantis wrote:They could have allied with the Russians, they could even have allied with the French or with the British.

They couldn't have done that because the British Empire was explicitly in that war because German industry was encroaching on trade that Britain considered to belong to itself, and it pursued the path of war as a logical extension of its protectionist policies and its attempt to maintain what I would colloquially refer to as 'the pound zone'.

Atlantis wrote:It is a testimony to the stupidity of Germany's feudal elite at the time that they failed to achieve a better outcome for the country by diplomatic means.

Diplomacy with Britain was always going to be impossible, because Britain had already resolved to start a war with you, if you didn't start it yourself. It was a matter of 'when' and 'how', and 'for how long', but not of 'if'.

In the end, it started in a way that was unexpected, and lasted longer than expected, but it wasn't surprising to the British government that there was a war.

Atlantis wrote:By the end of the 19th century, Germany had become the leading scientific and industrial country in the world.

Yes, and there are plenty of documents in Britain from time talking about just how bad that was for Britain, and why someone needed to do something. The way I see it, is that they would either find a resting balance by some kind of trade agreement, or by force of arms deciding where the scales would sit. In the end, they went with force of arms, because that was the only option back then (the EU did not exist!).

Atlantis wrote:Oh, pleeease! Spare us the war propaganda. The Russians are far too messy and unorganized to be any good as the terminators you make them look like.

You'll have to forgive me for laughing at this, I've heard this a couple of times from Russians and it strikes me as doubly ridiculous to hear it from a German like yourself. Your argument against the historical record is that somehow the Russians are 'too stupid' to have accomplished what they in actual fact accomplished?

That's not going to ever work on me.

It's absolutely laughable. Firstly, it's just a really shoddy Russian-style response, and secondly, it's coming out of the mouth of an apparently self-hating German. What the hell.

_________

layman wrote:I have noticed this a lot recently.

left-socialists and communists seem to have no problem with tsarist Russia returning because they all grew up worshiping the soviet empire and stalin.

It is one thing to call BS on the west as being hypocrites - Fair enough - but the lengths they go to justify putin-style imperialism is incredible. They also whitewash the history of how russia got its empire while squeeling about the US conquest of the natives of that continent or the British in Africa.

I suppose when you cross some water to do the same thing it makes all the difference. Maybe if Russia had ever made a decent navy ..

Yep. The other one - that you've just seen Atlantis use - is that he finds it 'unbelievable' because Russia has a national image of incompetency and fecklessness, whereas Japan has a national image of sadism and meticulousness, so whatever happened must somehow magically be Japan's doing rather than Russia's.

It's simply baffling.

Needless to say, Japan cannot have exterminated and enslaved all these people in the 15th - 19th centuries, because Japan wasn't there. Japan was at home for the entire duration of that saga. Russia was there, doing it. Atlantis should know that isn't opinion, that's history.
By Rich
#14507314
Everyone feared Russia. To some extent everyone feared everyone. But everyone particularly feared Russia. Don't believe what the Commie lie-mongers tell you. In 1913 Russia produced more steel than France and Russia combined. Much of Russia might of been backward, but it had a huge territory, huge resources, a huge population. It was a leading industrial power and it was developing at a terrifying rate. The warmongering expansionist aggressors Britain and France had no problem with pulling apart the Ottoman empire. They had already taken Morocco Algeria and Egypt and were developing concessions in the Levant and on the Arabian Peninsular. They were just concerned about Russia gaining too much from an Ottoman collapse as they had been since the demise of Napoleon. Russia it should be noted intervened diplomatically in the First Balkan war to shore up the Ottomans, because they didn't want Constantinople and the straits falling into the hands of Bulgaria or Greece. So much for their Slavic solidarity nonsense.

Anyway France wanted to resteal the Germanic lands of Alsace-Lorraine liberated by Bismark in 1871, so they ruthlessly sought out an alliance with Russians. Britain wasn't threatened by Germany in 1914, germany's power projection outside Europe was limited. But its empire was most definitely threatened by France and Russia. Hence when France and Russia allied some within the British elite most notably Gray thought that Britain needed to be allied to France and Russia. A classic case of keeps your friends close but keep your enemies closer.

What the Germans failed to understand, after 1871 was the depths of immorality of French, British, Italian and American leaders, and the long term insecurity of their situation. That the only security was power and dominance. That Germany needed to increase its power and its empire and cut down the power of the expansionist aggressors. And that the clock was ticking. Germany for its own security needed the same dominance in Europe that the United States had achieved in the Americas.
#14507591
Rich wrote:Everyone feared Russia.

I don't think so. The incompetent bungling Russian may be a bit of a stereotype, yet it is not completely unfounded. The Russians made a complete mess of things in the Russo-Japanese war. They were pretty invulnerable because of their vast landmass, but they had little power-projecting capabilities.

That the only security was power and dominance. That Germany needed to increase its power and its empire and cut down the power of the expansionist aggressors. And that the clock was ticking.

That is exactly the kind of thinking that landed the Germans in the mess of WWI. The idea of having to strike at the Franco-Russian alliance before it got too strong was absurd. They would have been a lot better off if they had tried to play the diplomatic game. An alliance between Russia and GB could never last. They clashed on too many fronts.

In conclusion, it was the inflexibility in the German thinking that was their downfall. Their leadership failed miserably in the diplomatic game of alliances.

This isn't very well understood abroad, but it has haunted German politics for the past 70 years. Post-war German politicians have been paranoid about getting isolated diplomatically like in the game of alliances in the run-up to 1914. Even today, German leaders will do anything to avoid diplomatic isolation. And we have to admit that they were successful. Today, it is GB that is isolated in the EU.
#14508717
The operational tempo of the Russo-Japanese war was dictated by Japan's weakness both at sea and at land. The siege and capture of Port Arthur, dictated by the Imperial Japanese Navy's inability to confront the First Pacific Squadron at sea, was disastrous for the Japanese army. Russian naval interdiction operations significantly impacted the development of the siege. The Imperial Japanese Army suffered over 30,000 casualties, an enormous figure for its largely conscript army to replace, considering the ongoing contestation of the lines of communication. Japan's entire land force was committed by March 1905 and it suffered another 75,000 casualties around Mukden, an enormous and pyrrhic battle for both sides. The arrangement of the truce in August resulted as much from revolution in Russia as from the exhaustion of Japan's financial and military resources.
#14508736
Groves wrote:The arrangement of the truce in August resulted as much from revolution in Russia as from the exhaustion of Japan's financial and military resources.

How can the Russian revolution of 1917 have been the reason for the Russian defeat in 1905? That lacks total credibility since Russia was still in a position to mobilize against the combined forces of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires in 1914.

The Russo-Japanese war was a complete fuck-up because the Czar tried to play politics against the wishes of his ministers and the advice of the generals.

And no matter if you portrait it as a truce or a Russian defeat, it put an end to Russian expansion in the Far East, making Russia turn West or rather South-West. That was the point in the discussion, not the technically of the war itself.
#14509199
How can the Russian revolution of 1917 have been the reason for the Russian defeat in 1905? That lacks total credibility since Russia was still in a position to mobilize against the combined forces of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires in 1914.

He was referring to the Russian Revolution of 1905, which the Tsarist regime only survived by the skin of its teeth. The fact that you seem to be unaware of the existence of this event suggests that your knowledge of the history of this period may be woefully deficient.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]