Russia did all what was possible to prevent a war with AH /Germany,because,whatever the outcome would be, the result would be bad for Russia .No one with a basic knowledge of the relations between Russia and the Poles will say (as you are doing) that the incorporation of million Poles would be an opportunity for Russia ,something positive, favourable .And, my interpretation is not distnct from what I said earlier : I said earlier that Russia feared the break-up of AH and did her best to avoid it . This is proved by the Russian attitude during the July crisis .Latze wrote:Even IF that would be just my interpretation all you offer now is an interpretation of your own. An interpretation that is quite distinct from the thing you said earlier, namely that Russia feared an Austrian break-up and actively tried to avoid it. That YOU think an acquisition of more Slavic subjects would have been bad for Russia is not enough, you have to show that Russian officials thought so.ljadw wrote:Latze wrote:
For this claim you were so far unable to show any evidence. But there is evidence directly contradicting the claim that Russia "knew" that the "disappearance of AH would be catastrophic": Russian officials (up to the czar) are on record thinking that a break up of Austria-Hungary would be an opportunity for enlargement. I pointed that out to you and your reaction was TWICE to make a statement about said sources that was simply untrue. I ask a third time: why do you just invent stuff in order to discredit things that are inconvenient to your theories? Do you consider that intellectually and ethically honest behavior?
"Opportunity for enlargement ": this is your interpretation .My interpretation is that the collaps of AH would force Russia to do something that would have bad results for Russia : to incorporate millions more of Poles .The past had proved Russia that they were better of without Poles : remember what happened in 1830 and 1863:to incorporate more Poles was a Trojan Horse .
I ask you again: why do you claim things about my quote you made up? If I start from the assumption that you are not stupid I can only conclude that you are dishonest.
The Russian Origins of the First World War
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
If "Russia" means the Czar, well, however incompetently, yes.ljadw wrote:Russia did all what was possible to prevent a war with AH /Germany,
If "Russia" means the up'n'coming industrial oligarchy, the Fuehrer-wannabes a la Kerensky, and their useful idiots in the Court of the Czar,
If funding the Black Hand is "all what was possible to prevent a war" then
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Russian leaders hoped that mobilization......would DETER Austria from an all-out military attack against Serbia,limit the concessions Serbia would have to made,and improve Russia'a ability to defend Serbia in the event of war.
Necessary conditions: Theory,methodology and applications (Gary Hoetz) P 138 note 3 .
Necessary conditions: Theory,methodology and applications (Gary Hoetz) P 138 note 3 .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
You claimed that Russia "knew" that "disappearance of AH would be catastrophic". Prove it! There has to be some archival evidence, doesn't it? Somewhere someone must have recorded an utterance of the czar or his ministers to that effect. A policy paper perhaps? Or a letter? Possibly even correspondence with Austrian officials...ljadw wrote:Russia did all what was possible to prevent a war with AH /Germany,because,whatever the outcome would be, the result would be bad for Russia .No one with a basic knowledge of the relations between Russia and the Poles will say (as you are doing) that the incorporation of million Poles would be an opportunity for Russia ,something positive, favourable .And, my interpretation is not distnct from what I said earlier : I said earlier that Russia feared the break-up of AH and did her best to avoid it . This is proved by the Russian attitude during the July crisis .Latze wrote:Even IF that would be just my interpretation all you offer now is an interpretation of your own. An interpretation that is quite distinct from the thing you said earlier, namely that Russia feared an Austrian break-up and actively tried to avoid it. That YOU think an acquisition of more Slavic subjects would have been bad for Russia is not enough, you have to show that Russian officials thought so.ljadw wrote:Latze wrote:
For this claim you were so far unable to show any evidence. But there is evidence directly contradicting the claim that Russia "knew" that the "disappearance of AH would be catastrophic": Russian officials (up to the czar) are on record thinking that a break up of Austria-Hungary would be an opportunity for enlargement. I pointed that out to you and your reaction was TWICE to make a statement about said sources that was simply untrue. I ask a third time: why do you just invent stuff in order to discredit things that are inconvenient to your theories? Do you consider that intellectually and ethically honest behavior?
"Opportunity for enlargement ": this is your interpretation .My interpretation is that the collaps of AH would force Russia to do something that would have bad results for Russia : to incorporate millions more of Poles .The past had proved Russia that they were better of without Poles : remember what happened in 1830 and 1863:to incorporate more Poles was a Trojan Horse .
I ask you again: why do you claim things about my quote you made up? If I start from the assumption that you are not stupid I can only conclude that you are dishonest.
It is totally irrelevant if (as if!) I think that Russian lordship over more Poles would have been a good thing for czarist Russia, as it is totally irrelevant that you think it wouldn't. The question is what Russian officials at the time thought about it. Again: show us the evidence that they held that attitude. Sukhomlinov stated to the French ambassador in May 1914 that Russia intended to have Galicia after Franz Josef's death. He was an ethnic Russian and the war minister to boot but maybe he had no basic knowledge of the relations between Russia and Poles?
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Close, but no cigar! The German "stand fest" has to be rendered as past perfect in English. Everything else follows from this. If that would be the expression of a conditional event (as you would like to read it) one has to switch the whole sentence around in German. But - no problem - we can send it to a qualified translator. Maybe one of the other gentleman can offer a contact? (Btw, don't you feel funny lecturing Germans in how to read German? And while we are at it: you still evaded the question why you tried to make wrong statements about my sources.)ljadw wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation: you are looking for something that would diminish the German responsibility for the outbreak of the war : =the willingness of AH to declare war on Russia .
Your interpretation is debunked by 3 facts :
1) grammatical: The past tense is always preceding the present perfect simple: stand fest is preceding erfahren hat .Thus the AH decision (claim) to send forces to the border with Russia happened BEFORE AH learned (claimed to have learn) that Germany decided to start the war against Russia ,and thus there is no causal relation between the subordinate and main clause,but the relation is conditional .
The meaning of the sentence is NOT : we have learned that you decided to start the war against Russia and decided to join, BUT,we decided to join (the war against Russia)WHEn you will decide to start this war .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
That Austria dragged the DoW out is not contested... what IS contested is your statement that Austria did nothing between 1st and 12th August. That was what you wrote and to "prove" it you came up with the Franz Josef telegram. What they did is spelled out in the correspondence between Vienna and Berlin and described in detail in the Austrian OH: the deployed troops on the border with the intention to wage war! Nobody in the Austrian general staff was waiting for the conclusion of the German armies foray into France, the decision to concentrate all available forces against Russia was taken in the night from the 31st of Uluy to the 1st of August (Austrian OH, vol. 1, p.21ff). That is why Tschirschky is saying that the measures are immediately ("sofort") in effect. Still there was a time lag due to the deployment against Serbia: that is why everything that is possible ("alles nur mögliche geschehen wird") is done - the deployment was already seriously compromised.ljadw wrote:2)historical :
"Der Weg in den Abgrund " : Deutsche Aussenpolitik:1902-1914
P669:Wilmelm II. wandte zich an Franz Joseph und Bethmann verlangte von Wien ultimativ sofort den Krieg gegen Russland aufzunehmen . DOCH DIE ÖSTERREICHISCHE FÜHRUNG ZÖGERTE NOCH TAGELANG.
Note 38 :
quellen :Hg Hölzle S. 464 ff
:Schäfer :Moltke S 534 ff
:Seyfert :Bezziehungen S 83 ff
:Kantarowicz : Gutachten S 335
Translation :
Wilhelm was turning to Franz Jozeph and Bethmann demanded ultimatively that Vienna would start immediately the war against Russia . But,Vienna still was wavering for several days .
3) Berchtold did not say : we will send our main forces to the border with Russia, he said : we will do everything what's possible .
If a politician (or a plumber,carpenter,etc) is saying : I will do everything what's possible , he means : I will do nothing .
So, I am on the road till Monday. No need to hurry your response or expect answers from me till then.
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Skolon (governorgeneral of Warsaw) :Latze wrote:You claimed that Russia "knew" that "disappearance of AH would be catastrophic". Prove it! There has to be some archival evidence, doesn't it? Somewhere someone must have recorded an utterance of the czar or his ministers to that effect. A policy paper perhaps? Or a letter? Possibly even correspondence with Austrian officials...ljadw wrote:Russia did all what was possible to prevent a war with AH /Germany,because,whatever the outcome would be, the result would be bad for Russia .No one with a basic knowledge of the relations between Russia and the Poles will say (as you are doing) that the incorporation of million Poles would be an opportunity for Russia ,something positive, favourable .And, my interpretation is not distnct from what I said earlier : I said earlier that Russia feared the break-up of AH and did her best to avoid it . This is proved by the Russian attitude during the July crisis .Latze wrote:Even IF that would be just my interpretation all you offer now is an interpretation of your own. An interpretation that is quite distinct from the thing you said earlier, namely that Russia feared an Austrian break-up and actively tried to avoid it. That YOU think an acquisition of more Slavic subjects would have been bad for Russia is not enough, you have to show that Russian officials thought so.ljadw wrote:Latze wrote:
For this claim you were so far unable to show any evidence. But there is evidence directly contradicting the claim that Russia "knew" that the "disappearance of AH would be catastrophic": Russian officials (up to the czar) are on record thinking that a break up of Austria-Hungary would be an opportunity for enlargement. I pointed that out to you and your reaction was TWICE to make a statement about said sources that was simply untrue. I ask a third time: why do you just invent stuff in order to discredit things that are inconvenient to your theories? Do you consider that intellectually and ethically honest behavior?
"Opportunity for enlargement ": this is your interpretation .My interpretation is that the collaps of AH would force Russia to do something that would have bad results for Russia : to incorporate millions more of Poles .The past had proved Russia that they were better of without Poles : remember what happened in 1830 and 1863:to incorporate more Poles was a Trojan Horse .
I ask you again: why do you claim things about my quote you made up? If I start from the assumption that you are not stupid I can only conclude that you are dishonest.
It is totally irrelevant if (as if!) I think that Russian lordship over more Poles would have been a good thing for czarist Russia, as it is totally irrelevant that you think it wouldn't. The question is what Russian officials at the time thought about it. Again: show us the evidence that they held that attitude. Sukhomlinov stated to the French ambassador in May 1914 that Russia intended to have Galicia after Franz Josef's death. He was an ethnic Russian and the war minister to boot but maybe he had no basic knowledge of the relations between Russia and Poles?
"Wenn ihr gegen Deutschland und Österreich marschieren lassen ,so geht Polen in die Luft,ihr könnt in Polen nicht einmal mobilisieren,unsere polnische Ingenieure sprengen euch alle Brücken."
Frankfurter Zeitung 18 august 1914 : "Unser Gener Russland" (by Dr Paul Rohrbach) .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
1) in post 236, you said : "stand hier auch der Entschuss fest " = past tense, now you are saying : it is past perfect .Latze wrote:
That Austria dragged the DoW out is not contested... what IS contested is your statement that Austria did nothing between 1st and 12th August. That was what you wrote and to "prove" it you came up with the Franz Josef telegram. What they did is spelled out in the correspondence between Vienna and Berlin and described in detail in the Austrian OH: the deployed troops on the border with the intention to wage war! Nobody in the Austrian general staff was waiting for the conclusion of the German armies foray into France, the decision to concentrate all available forces against Russia was taken in the night from the 31st of Uluy to the 1st of August (Austrian OH, vol. 1, p.21ff). That is why Tschirschky is saying that the measures are immediately ("sofort") in effect. Still there was a time lag due to the deployment against Serbia: that is why everything that is possible ("alles nur mögliche geschehen wird") is done - the deployment was already seriously compromised.
So, I am on the road till Monday. No need to hurry your response or expect answers from me till then.
Besides, past perfect or past tense : it changes nothing : it is indicating
a) that the AH decision had been taken BEFORE AH knew of the German DOW :thus both were not related
or b)that there was no decision : there would be only a decision if Germany started a war against Russia
c)or that the AH decision was depending on what Russia would do,not on what Germany would do .
2) AH was deploying forces on the border with Russia, but there is no proof that thiswas done with the intention to wage war against Russia :unless you can prove this . With a text,and not with a claim . In the notorious telegram, there is no talking of waging war with Russia .
3)The decision to concentrate the main forces (NOR all the available forces) against Russia, was taken, following OH vol 1, P 21 ff, in the night from 31 july to 1 august,before and thus independent the German DOW (unless you are saying that Germany had already decided to start a war against Russia before her DOW,and had told this to AH).
Thus :
a) OH vol 1,P 21 was wrong
or b) FJ was lying in the telegram
c) your interpretation of the telegram is wrong ,and here also,OH is wrong or FJ is lying .
OH is saying : the decision was taken before the German DOW
Latze (contradicting his own source) is saying :the decision was taken immediately after they learnt of the DOW (=because the DOW)
I am saying :there was no decision :they had decided to decide if there was a DOW .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Post edited to remove personal remark and modern political comments. Please refrain from using present day subjects as they can see a discussion move to areas not permitted. Also please avoid remarks that can be seen as personal by readers as they are often put off by them. Terry[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
A more PC exemple :
Hull to Konoye (august 1941) :
1) When we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention " in Indochina, our decision was to stop the sanctions against Japan
2) When we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention" in Indochina, our decision has been to stop the sanctions against Japan .
Both sentences have a different meaning :
The first (grammatically cripple) means : our decision was to stop the sanctions against Japan when we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention "in Indochina.
The second means :we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention " in Indochina,and, (because of this) we have decided to stop the sanctions against Japan .
A more PC exemple :
Hull to Konoye (august 1941) :
1) When we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention " in Indochina, our decision was to stop the sanctions against Japan
2) When we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention" in Indochina, our decision has been to stop the sanctions against Japan .
Both sentences have a different meaning :
The first (grammatically cripple) means : our decision was to stop the sanctions against Japan when we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention "in Indochina.
The second means :we have learned that you decided to stop your "intervention " in Indochina,and, (because of this) we have decided to stop the sanctions against Japan .
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Austria opted to go to war with Serbia, Germany did not force her to do this even if she pressured for it. Austria also acted with the full knowledge that to do so would cause Russia to react, probably by mobilising her army, and act that would almost certainly see Austria and Germany both mobilise too - Moltke laid out a series of scenarios and all ended this way no matter what mobilisation had started things. Austria also had a good idea of the German operations plan, so knew Germany would go to war after mobilising, even if she was not sure of the scale of forces in the east and west, she knew an attack in the west was the first action planned by Germany. You can blame Germany for much of this, but you cannot alter the fact Austria was making her own decisions and nothing could have forced her to go to war unless she wanted to do so. Austria didnt blunder into war by accident, neither did Russia for that matter, and must accept a portion of the blame because of her choices.
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
No :you are starting from the wrong assumption that Sarajevo, the Austrian DOW,the Russian answer,were related to the outbreak of the war/caused the war .
One can not say that without Sarajevo and the Austrian replay,there would have been no war in 1914(that's why the Byzantine discussions about the Black Hand,etc are a wast of time):the only thing one can say is that without the German DOW on Russia and invasion of Belgium and France,there would have been no war in 1914.The German DOW caused the outbreak of WWI.
On 31 july Europe was still at peace, notwithstanding Sarajevo and the Russian /Austrian reactions .
Saying that Russia was coresponsible in 1914,is saying that Poland,France and Britain were coresponsible in 1939 or that the US were coresponsible for PH .
One can not say that without Sarajevo and the Austrian replay,there would have been no war in 1914(that's why the Byzantine discussions about the Black Hand,etc are a wast of time):the only thing one can say is that without the German DOW on Russia and invasion of Belgium and France,there would have been no war in 1914.The German DOW caused the outbreak of WWI.
On 31 july Europe was still at peace, notwithstanding Sarajevo and the Russian /Austrian reactions .
Saying that Russia was coresponsible in 1914,is saying that Poland,France and Britain were coresponsible in 1939 or that the US were coresponsible for PH .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Incorrect, as this overlooks without Russian organized and supported assassination of the heir to KuK throne.ljadw wrote:the only thing one can say is that without the German DOW on Russia and invasion of Belgium and France,there would have been no war in 1914. The German DOW caused the outbreak of WWI.
Notwithstanding because?On 31 july Europe was still at peace, notwithstanding Sarajevo and the Russian /Austrian reactions .
P.S. And Russia was corresponsible in 1914, and was corresponsible in 1939.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
It is only wrong if I accept your opinion, which I do not, as without Sarajevo there would be no war at all. If Russia had not included a military element to her response to the Austrian actions there would still have been no general war, only an Austro-Serbian war.ljadw wrote:No :you are starting from the wrong assumption that Sarajevo, the Austrian DOW,the Russian answer,were related to the outbreak of the war/caused the war .
OK, but a good case can be made for partial responsibility resting with each nation you mention, Poland, France, and Britain decided to confront Germany, a much needed response certainly, but they did opt to fight this time, rather than the abandonment Czechoslovakia received. The US imposed an oil embargo they knew would almost certainly lead to the long anticipated confrontation with Japan that had been considered from the WWI period onwards.ljadw wrote:One can not say that without Sarajevo and the Austrian replay,there would have been no war in 1914(that's why the Byzantine discussions about the Black Hand,etc are a wast of time):the only thing one can say is that without the German DOW on Russia and invasion of Belgium and France,there would have been no war in 1914.The German DOW caused the outbreak of WWI.
ljadw wrote:On 31 july Europe was still at peace, notwithstanding Sarajevo and the Russian /Austrian reactions .
People can look for orders and planning for a war that would be started where Germany participated even if Sarajevo had not taken place, and from memory nothing of the sort exists in any nation. The closest you will get is another war in the Balkans in which Austria took place, but even there nothing was actively being planned despite Conrad's constant urgings.
Saying that Russia was coresponsible in 1914,is saying that Poland,France and Britain were coresponsible in 1939 or that the US were coresponsible for PH .
A lot depends on if you desire a purely black and white result, where one side is totally guilty and the other totally innocent. This is just as puerile when applied to the Central Powers (or one member state) or the Entente, as Peterhof has repeatedly claimed. There should be a variation in shades of grey if you want to analyze the causes of the war in any depth.
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
Incorrect, as this overlooks without Russian organized and supported assassination of the heir to KuK throne.BDV wrote:ljadw wrote:the only thing one can say is that without the German DOW on Russia and invasion of Belgium and France,there would have been no war in 1914. The German DOW caused the outbreak of WWI.
1)This has never been proved
2) To finance a terrorist/revolutionary/
liberation organization is not illegal .Every one did it and everyone does it .
If X is financing such an organization, X is not responsible for what is doing this organization .
Before the war,everyone was selling oil to Hitler,but that does not mean that everyone was responsible for the outbreak of the war .
If A is selling a gun to B,and B is killing with this gun C,A is not responsible .
For Russia to be responsible for Sarajevo, you have first to prove that Russia financed the murderers, secondly that Russia knew that these people would kill FF and his wife,and last but not least that without the Russian money,Sarajevo would be impossible .
If these 3 are proven,than you have an indirect responsibility of Russia: for a direct responsibility,you have to prove that Russia ordered Sarajevo .
Re: The Russian Origins of the First World War
28 june :Sarajevo.BDV wrote:
Notwithstanding because?On 31 july Europe was still at peace, notwithstanding Sarajevo and the Russian /Austrian reactions .
.
31 july : Europe still at peace .
Thus, Sarajevo did not cause the outbreak of WWI .