Bizarre Assessment of the "Schlieffen Plan"

[ljadw]

Nothing of what was doing AH would have provoked a European war, if there was no German intervention .

It took the Germans a month of threats and pressures to force AH to give Serbia an ultimatum .And when this was done,nothing happened : no Russian ultimatum or other threat .

When AH declared war,the result was the same : Russia did not move: no ultimatum or DOW.

And after the AH DOW,what happened ? NOTHING.Serbia evacuated Belgrade and AH did not invade although nothing could prevent an Austrian invasion .
If nothing of what was doing AH was serious enough for Russia to give AH an ultimatum or declare war ,one can not say that AH was co- responsible for the outbreak of WWI.

One can even not say that Austria clearly wanted war with Serbia,because on 1 august 1914 there was no war with Serbia, only a DOW .A DOW does not mean that war exist:a DOW is only a piece of paper .
What AH would have done after 1 august is something no one can predict,besides it is irrelevant : WWI started BEFORE there was a real war between AH and Serbia,thus WWI was not caused by the war between AH and Serbia but the war between AH and Serbia was caused by the start of WWI .

As Russia was "satisfied" with wwhat was doing AH,one can not blame AH for the outbreak of WWI,and as AH was "satisfied" with what was doing Russia,one can not blame Russia for the outbreak of WWI .

There was peace on 31 july 1914 and an European war started on 1 august 1914.Who started him ? The country that declared war on Russia and France and attacked Russia( immediately after the German DOW on Russia,the German navy shelled the Russian port of Libau),the country that invented lies to have a reason to invade Luxemburg,Belgium and France.

[Terry Duncan]

Nothing of what was doing AH would have provoked a European war, if there was no German intervention .

Unless you can show some way Germany can allow Austria to fight Russia alone, then it is safe to conclude that an Austro-Serbian war would be followed by an Austro-Russian war, and that in turn must involve Germany to protect her ally. If you mean ;would Austria have attacked Serbia without German agreement' then we cannot be sure, though as the same situation outlined above would still come into play, then Austria could force German support.

It took the Germans a month of threats and pressures to force AH to give Serbia an ultimatum .And when this was done,nothing happened : no Russian ultimatum or other threat .

The response to the Note was a request for more time, from several nations, but the time allowed was such that the deadline had run out before such requests could be dealt with. At this point the Austrian records show they intended to declare war on 12th August, the day they could mobilise.

When AH declared war,the result was the same : Russia did not move: no ultimatum or DOW.

Russia moved to mobilise against Austria on 29th August, there was no need to issue an ultimatum at this point as Russia was not ready to act anyhow, and to issue one was sure to involve Germany almost instantly.

And after the AH DOW,what happened ? NOTHING.Serbia evacuated Belgrade and AH did not invade although nothing could prevent an Austrian invasion .
If nothing of what was doing AH was serious enough for Russia to give AH an ultimatum or declare war ,one can not say that AH was co- responsible for the outbreak of WWI.

Austria shelled Belgrade twice, once from their nearby fortress and once from the river monitors, which was hardly nothing. Austria has made the first declaration of war, and fired the first shots too.

One can even not say that Austria clearly wanted war with Serbia,because on 1 august 1914 there was no war with Serbia, only a DOW .A DOW does not mean that war exist:a DOW is only a piece of paper .

Well I guess if you ignore shelling another nations capital city, and abortive cross river skirmishes, then yes, the war is not fully under way yet, though as Conrad had been clear he would not move before 12th August I am not sure what you expect would happen?

What AH would have done after 1 august is something no one can predict,besides it is irrelevant : WWI started BEFORE there was a real war between AH and Serbia,thus WWI was not caused by the war between AH and Serbia but the war between AH and Serbia was caused by the start of WWI .

This seems rather confused as the war between Austria and Serbia started on 28th July 1914 (this is the date on most war memorials incidently) whilst the other nations joined in between 1st August and 4th August. It was the responses to the Austrian DOW that caused WWI to start. Without the Austrian actions of 28th/29th July, it is possible a war might have still been avoided (I personally do not think so by this point, but a good case can be made for it nontheless.

As Russia was "satisfied" with wwhat was doing AH,one can not blame AH for the outbreak of WWI,and as AH was "satisfied" with what was doing Russia,one can not blame Russia for the outbreak of WWI .

Russian actions indicate Russia was anything but satisfied with what Austria was doing, otherwise she wouldnt have partially mobilised at all. Russia was happy to mobilise whilst talking and then to use a more direct threat once she was ready unless Austria had agreed to cease the war with Serbia. I am not sure Austria was 'satisfied' with Russian actions, she didnt feel they needed to cause a war at that point, but nor did Austria ever show signs of agreeing to what Russia was asking, so a war was likely at some point if that continued.

There was peace on 31 july 1914 and an European war started on 1 august 1914.Who started him ? The country that declared war on Russia and France and attacked Russia( immediately after the German DOW on Russia,the German navy shelled the Russian port of Libau),the country that invented lies to have a reason to invade Luxemburg,Belgium and France.

There was a war already happening by 31st July, the only other person I have seen try to make a similar claim to this was Peterhof, and he didnt convince anyone to his views either. Even on 1st August a 'European war' was not reality by this standard, as only Germany and Russia were at war, this is the problem with such selective reasoning. Germany had cut the ground from under the last attempts at talks, but by this point it was probably too late to avoid war anyhow, everyone was arming, none of them trusted their rivals, and none were willing to let the others gain a lead in preparations.

[glenn239]

Until Moltke returned to work officially the politicians had fully controlled events (badly) and had forced a situation where the politicians were the ones urging Austria to declare war - Moltke's memo deals with the variations possible after this act. Moltke seems to be saying that war is now inevitable unless someone does something that cannot be predicted, all that remains is to decide the timing and circumstance each nation will fall into place. Unless something had already happened that Moltke viewed as irreversible or had gone against his own wishes, there seems little point in submitting this memo as soon as he returned from holiday.

It's been a while since I looked at it closely, and memory fades. But my impression is that Jagow and Bethmann were overconfident they could push through their policy, and it wasn't until the quadruple-whammy of the Kaiser returning, Moltke's pressure, the Russian mobilization and the British warning that they switched gears.

Jagow is an odd character, rather a non-entity prior to the July Crisis, but during and afterwards he certainly acts very strangely, was it Albertini who noted he had a 'tenuous relationship with the truth'?

Jagow struck me as a typical slippery bureaucrat type.

If I had to point a finger at a person who has escaped heavy scrutiny so far, but who might have known far more than is generally acccepted, I would suggest Jagow.

Within the context of Jagow and Bethmann trying to push through a broken policy up until about 29th July.

The problem with this is that it was the Foreign Office urging Austria to go to war and remove all chance of a peaceful settlement being forced on the situation,

The second half is your perception, not theirs. They were thinking that if Austria went to war it would preclude the situation escalating because Russia would draw back from acting. As the war went on, the Germans would leverage out a compromise settlement in the second half of 1914.

Even with all the warnings coming from Russia from 18th-25th July, it is the Foreign Office telling Berchtold he is moving too slowly, even though Conrad has made it clear Austria cannot do anything until 12th August.

Jagow's wasn't much interested in the military dynamics of Austrian mobilization. He was more worried about the politics, getting the raise in, to force the Russians to raise or fold.

I would agree that with the exception of Austria, none of the great powers wanted a war or went to war from pure malice,

Austria went to war with malice in much the same way the Zebra goes to the Lion's belly kicking. As for the rest of them, yes, a bunch of miscalculations and errors and such, but also with eyes wide open. They did not want war per se, but none of them wanted peace more than the war that came into the offering either.

[Terry Duncan]

The second half is your perception, not theirs. They were thinking that if Austria went to war it would preclude the situation escalating because Russia would draw back from acting. As the war went on, the Germans would leverage out a compromise settlement in the second half of 1914.

It is not my perception, it is what Jagow told Szogyeny;

I should like to say that here it is universally taken for granted that an eventual negative reply by Serbia will be followed immediately by a declaration of war from us and military operations. Any delay in commencing military operations is regarded here as a great danger because of the interference of other Powers.

Given other powers were all pressuring for peace, there is little room for interpretation as to what the 'danger' was, other than the danger to Berchtold and Bethmann's policy. If Austria doesnt rush to war, there is no real danger of anyone else starting a war, the only danger is that the limited war scenarion has become impossible.

Austria went to war with malice in much the same way the Zebra goes to the Lion's belly kicking.

Probably why the highlighted part of what I wrote applies, though Serbia can hardly be described as a lion trying to kill a helpless Austrian Zebra.

I would agree that with the exception of Austria, none of the great powers wanted a war or went to war from pure malice,

We frequently see accusations of malice, so I thought it best to rule out that motive too.

As for the rest of them, yes, a bunch of miscalculations and errors and such, but also with eyes wide open. They did not want war per se, but none of them wanted peace more than the war that came into the offering either.

War rather than a diplomatic defeat yes, that is why raising the stakes that high with the Note was almost certainly suicidal.

[ljadw]

"unless you can show some way Germany can allow Austria to fight Russia alone,
then it is safe to conclude that an Austro-Serbian war would be followed by an Austro-Russian war, and that in turn must involve Germany to protect her ally
If you mean ;would Austria have attacked Serbia without German agreement' then we cannot be sure, though as the same situation outlined above would still come into play, then Austria could force German support."

1)Why should there be a war between Russia and AH ? The war between AH and Russia started only AFTER and because the German DOW on Russia : only on 6 august was there an Austrian DOW on Russia, and only after a stern German order .

2) as there was no Austrian-Russian war till 6 august,this means that there was no Austrian-Serbian war till 6 august .

3) No : Austria would not have declared war on Serbia and would not have attacked Serbia 6 days AFTER its DOW on Russia,without German pressure .

4)Germany was interested in a Austrian-Serbian war only if this would provoke an Austrian-Russian war.And Germany was only interested in a Austrian-Russian war if this would provoke a war between Germany and Russia.And Germany was only interested in a war with Russia if this would provoke a war with France .

But,the German expectations failed:

a)the war between Austria and Serbia did not result in a war between Austria and Russia

b) the Germans decided to intervene :they declared war on Russia ,but Austria looked the other way and initially this did not concern the Germans because now they had their war in the East .

c)new setback: the war between Germany and Russia did not result in a war between Germany and France ,and,desperate, the Germans invented the fable of the French air attacks .

3 times the Germans were" abandoned" :AH refused to invade Serbia,Russia refused to declare war on Austria and France refused to declare war on Germany .How could the Germans execute their master plan if no one was collaborating .

[ljadw]

If Austria doesnt rush to war, there is no real danger of anyone else starting a war, the only danger is that the limited war scenarion has become impossible.

War rather than a diplomatic defeat yes, that is why raising the stakes that high with the Note was almost certainly suicidal.[/quote]


1)if Austria doesn't rush to war,there is A REAL danger of NO ONE else starting a war

2)Raising the stakes that high with the Note was not suicidal: it was deliberate (from German side).

[ljadw]

Russia moved to mobilise against Austria on 29th August, there was no need to issue an ultimatum at this point as Russia was not ready to act anyhow, and to issue one was sure to involve Germany almost instantly.



Austria shelled Belgrade twice, once from their nearby fortress and once from the river monitors, which was hardly nothing. Austria has made the first declaration of war, and fired the first shots too.



Well I guess if you ignore shelling another nations capital city, and abortive cross river skirmishes, then yes, the war is not fully under way yet, though as Conrad had been clear he would not move before 12th August I am not sure what you expect would happen?



This seems rather confused as the war between Austria and Serbia started on 28th July 1914 (this is the date on most war memorials incidently) whilst the other nations joined in between 1st August and 4th August. It was the responses to the Austrian DOW that caused WWI to start. Without the Austrian actions of 28th/29th July, it is possible a war might have still been avoided (I personally do not think so by this point, but a good case can be made for it nontheless.



Russian actions indicate Russia was anything but satisfied with what Austria was doing, otherwise she wouldnt have partially mobilised at all. Russia was happy to mobilise whilst talking and then to use a more direct threat once she was ready unless Austria had agreed to cease the war with Serbia. I am not sure Austria was 'satisfied' with Russian actions, she didnt feel they needed to cause a war at that point, but nor did Austria ever show signs of agreeing to what Russia was asking, so a war was likely at some point if that continued.



There was a war already happening by 31st July, the only other person I have seen try to make a similar claim to this was Peterhof, and he didnt convince anyone to his views either. Even on 1st August a 'European war' was not reality by this standard, as only Germany and Russia were at war, this is the problem with such selective reasoning. Germany had cut the ground from under the last attempts at talks, but by this point it was probably too late to avoid war anyhow, everyone was arming, none of them trusted their rivals, and none were willing to let the others gain a lead in preparations.

1) Russia did not issue an ultimatum because there was no need: what AH was doing was not worth an ultimatum

2 and 3 ) Shellings and skirmishes were no grounds for a Russian ultimatum and DOW: the Russians mobilized to prevent AH from going farther :from invading Sebia . And Austria understood the warning very good .

4) NO : it were the positive responses on the Austrian DOW on Serbia which decided Germany to take control

5) Russia and Austria decided to do their best to prevent a war between each other,which was not to the liking of Germany

6) NO: Russia would agree with Peterhof (for opposite reasons) :if there was a real war between Austria and Hungary on 31 july,there would be a real war between Russia and Austria on 31 july .

The German-Russian war on 1 august meant a European war (for Germany as soon as possible:the Germans started already on 1 august with the invasion of Luxemburg) .

For the Germans,a war with Russia without war with France was senceless .

[Attrition]

http://www.comroestudios.com/StanHanna/Vol1.pdf

[Terry Duncan]

"unless you can show some way Germany can allow Austria to fight Russia alone,
then it is safe to conclude that an Austro-Serbian war would be followed by an Austro-Russian war, and that in turn must involve Germany to protect her ally
If you mean ;would Austria have attacked Serbia without German agreement' then we cannot be sure, though as the same situation outlined above would still come into play, then Austria could force German support."

1)Why should there be a war between Russia and AH ? The war between AH and Russia started only AFTER and because the German DOW on Russia : only on 6 august was there an Austrian DOW on Russia, and only after a stern German order .

2) as there was no Austrian-Russian war till 6 august,this means that there was no Austrian-Serbian war till 6 august .

3) No : Austria would not have declared war on Serbia and would not have attacked Serbia 6 days AFTER its DOW on Russia,without German pressure .

4)Germany was interested in a Austrian-Serbian war only if this would provoke an Austrian-Russian war.And Germany was only interested in a Austrian-Russian war if this would provoke a war between Germany and Russia.And Germany was only interested in a war with Russia if this would provoke a war with France .

But,the German expectations failed:

a)the war between Austria and Serbia did not result in a war between Austria and Russia

b) the Germans decided to intervene :they declared war on Russia ,but Austria looked the other way and initially this did not concern the Germans because now they had their war in the East .

c)new setback: the war between Germany and Russia did not result in a war between Germany and France ,and,desperate, the Germans invented the fable of the French air attacks .

3 times the Germans were" abandoned" :AH refused to invade Serbia,Russia refused to declare war on Austria and France refused to declare war on Germany .How could the Germans execute their master plan if no one was collaborating .

I am not at all sure how to respond to your points 1 - 4 as they seem so confused and at odds with the recorded facts as to make doing so pointless. You seem to be under the impression that Austria was only able to act as and when Germany told it to, and that all the other powers were lambs sitting around doing little.

As for Germany desiring or deliberately starting the war as part of a plan, as opposed to from a botched foreign policy with regards to a limited war, please show some sort of evidence to support the idea? I am sure you are aware that people have put forward claims as to how Russia was attempting to start a war and so on, so it would help if the evidence is somewhat more compelling.

[Terry Duncan]

http://www.comroestudios.com/StanHanna/Vol1.pdf

Thanks for this link, I will read it through, no doubt in many parts as time allows!

[ljadw]

I am saying

a) that Austria tried to avoid a war with Russia because they knew the dire consequences of such a war even if he was victorious .

b)that Russia wanted to avoid a war with Germany and Austria because it knew the dire consequences of such a war even if he was victorious

c) that France had not the intention to help Russia if there was a war between Russia and Germany + AH

d) that Britain tried to avoid/prevent a European war because it knewthe dire consequences of such a war,whoever would win

e) that the only country who wanted a general war in Europe (since 10 years) was Germany because only such a war could give Germany what it wanted : domination of Europe and the status of a world power .

The German historian Heinrich August Winkler said the following :

"Das Ziel mit dem die deutschen eliten in der Ersten Weltkrieg gezogen waren ,hiess Hegemonie in Europa und Aufstieg zur Weltmacht ."


Translation : The German ruling classes entered WWI with as goal hegemony in Europe and the status of world power .


There are a lot of indications/proofs that Germany wanted this war :

It forced AH to issue an ultimatum

It forced AH to declare war

It declared war on Russia while there was no reason for it

It declared war on France while there was no reason for it

As reason for its DOW on France it used a plain lie

In 1905 and 1912 it provoked France about Morocco hoping that this would result in a war with France,when France ignored these provocations, Germany said that it was not interested in Morocco

In 1908 during the crisis of Bosnia-Herzegovina it deliberatedly affronted Russia hoping that this would result in a war,although the crisis about B/H was not the business of Germany .

It was always putting oil on the fire.Why is someone putting oil on the fire ? Because he is a pyroman who wants a big fire .

[Terry Duncan]

I am saying

a) that Austria tried to avoid a war with Russia because they knew the dire consequences of such a war even if he was victorious .

b)that Russia wanted to avoid a war with Germany and Austria because it knew the dire consequences of such a war even if he was victorious

Yet both did their best to increase the tensions as the crisis went on, neither was willing to back down, and neither was forced to do anything by another power, they took their own decisions.

c) that France had not the intention to help Russia if there was a war between Russia and Germany + AH

I would agree that the French had not acted instantly, but they were acting, and there is no indication they were about to abandon the Russian alliance. They were not even really questioning the information coming in from Russia about mobilisation, let alone suggesting Russia was on her own unless she took a more reasonable tone. In Viviani's memorable words, 'France will look to its own interests' and that pretty much said involvement. The lack of an instant DOW could simply be that France knew it would not be ready to act for some days and therefore saw no point in acting in such a way, the mobilisation order indicates a willingness to move the troops to the German border to force Germany to fight on two fronts, exactly as the alliance asks for.

d) that Britain tried to avoid/prevent a European war because it knewthe dire consequences of such a war,whoever would win

Britain tried to prevent a war yes, but mostly because the balance of power was threatened by any war, so British interests were best served by peace. Britain still went to war when it could have simply refused to do so.

e) that the only country who wanted a general war in Europe (since 10 years) was Germany because only such a war could give Germany what it wanted : domination of Europe and the status of a world power .

Saying so is nice, but it means little and does not match all the known facts. In 1905-6 German had the best chance for fighting a single front war, but did not do so, or even try to do so. Why not if they were so determined?

The German historian Heinrich August Winkler said the following :

"Das Ziel mit dem die deutschen eliten in der Ersten Weltkrieg gezogen waren ,hiess Hegemonie in Europa und Aufstieg zur Weltmacht ."

Translation : The German ruling classes entered WWI with as goal hegemony in Europe and the status of world power .

France entered the war with the goal of retaking Alsace-Lorraine, but that is a totally different thing to going to war because of Alsace-Lorraine. A war goal and what leads a nation to declare war can be quite different things.

There are a lot of indications/proofs that Germany wanted this war :

Maybe you need to show the convincing ones then?

It forced AH to issue an ultimatum

No, Austria did that all on its own to appease Tisza and the Hungarians, Germany had told them to act and act fast.

It forced AH to declare war

Nothing forced Austria to declare war, Germany pressured for the declaration of war to be moved forward from 12th August to 27th-28th July, but sending a couple of 'hurry up and get on with it' telegrams are hardly 'forcing' anything. Berchtold proved to be perfectly able to be intransigent when it suited him to do so, as he was with all the peace suggestions.

It declared war on Russia while there was no reason for it

You may not agree with the decision but there was a reason. The Russian mobilisation threatened to make the German war plan impossible if it was allowed to move forward too much of German measures, then coupled with The Netherlands and Belgium mobilising too, making the Liege coup-de-main also more risky, then with the Austrians needing to know what Germany would do by 1st August so as to avoid sending Army B to the Balkans too, the Germans were running out of time. I believe they acted too fast, in that they could still have waited two or maybe three more days before declaring war, though they did likely have to mobilise in response to Russian and French actions when they did. This distinction of being able to mobilise without declaring war seems to have been overlooked for no reason better than it was specified in the plan that actions took place at set times.

It declared war on France while there was no reason for it

I think war with France was inevitable under the circumstances, Germany pressed the matter, but probably only by a few days at most.

As reason for its DOW on France it used a plain lie

Rather like the French and Russians lied about their only mobilising because Germany had alreade done so, or like France lied to Britain about Austrian troops fighing on the western front? The lies were probably no more than stupid attempts to win over public and neutral opinion, but unless you can see France allowing all its investments in Russia to suddenly become worthless, or finding another large European power to act as a partner in case of German aggression, then France is unlikely to have abandined the allience, especially as Poincare and Viviani were the ones telling Russia the two had to stick together and take a hard line only a week before.

In 1905 and 1912 it provoked France about Morocco hoping that this would result in a war with France,when France ignored these provocations, Germany said that it was not interested in Morocco

Bulow and Holstein were perfectly clear that Germany had no interest in war over Morocco, it was bluff intended to intimidate France into breaking with a Britain that refused to support her.

In 1908 during the crisis of Bosnia-Herzegovina it deliberatedly affronted Russia hoping that this would result in a war,although the crisis about B/H was not the business of Germany .

Given Austria was a German ally and in need of support, then it was the business of Germany by the point it was involved, though its method was unsubtle and insulting. It also knew Russia was not really in any position to fight, so there was a minimal risk of war. If Germany had wanted war it could have simply allowed Austria to continue and then declare war on Russia if it acted against Austria as the alliance would require it.

It was always putting oil on the fire.Why is someone putting oil on the fire ? Because he is a pyroman who wants a big fire .

France and Russia were hardly innocent in this respect either, Liman von Sanders, Morocco, the Balkans and so on. For every point there is a good counterpoint when anyone is trying to blame either a single power or even a single alliance for the war, they all played an important role in creating the situation leading to war and in the crisis that caused it.

[ljadw]

Saying so is nice, but it means little and does not match all the known facts. In 1905-6 German had the best chance for fighting a single front war, but did not do so, or even try to do so. Why not if they were so determined?

,

You fail to understand the political reasons: only a war with France could give Germany hegemony in Europe ,a war with Rusia would not do this .
But,a war with France was only possible if there was first a war with Russia: the German socialists would never accept an unprovoked attack on France ,they would only accept a war with France if France started him .That's why the Germans were provoking France in 1905 and 1912,hoping that this would result in a war .There was no war in 1905 and 1912 because the french (especially the socialists) refused to fight for Morocco

In 1905/1906 the east was calm,there was no chance for a war between AH and Russia,war the Germans could use to declare war on Russia which,they hoped,would result in a war with France .

In 1908 there was a crisis in the Balkans and the Germans hurried to put fuel on the fire by provoking the Russians : on your knees Ivan before your master.They hoped that Russia would refuse and that this would result in the big war they wanted. But,to their big disappointmet, the Russians did not bite in the bait .

The German ruling classes could not afford a long war,a war with Russia would be a long war,thus such a war should be avoided .

But only a war with Russia could make a war with France possible .

A war with Russia was politically possible but militarily and economically not affordable .

A war with France was politically not possible but militarily winnable

This was the dillemma of the German ruling classes.

[Terry Duncan]

The German Socialists were the same ones who were all too happy to agree that they would not support any war at the last meeting before the war, where they were the leading proponents of the workers refusing to fight and stopping any war this way. As soon as a war happened, they like almost all the other Socialists, supported their nations war efforts.

In 1909 the worst way to provoke a war was to threaten Russia, who was known to not be in a position to fight Germany, far better to let her start a fight with Austria and then cite this as casus foederis as the alliance allowed, and saving fellow Germans from the nasty Slavs is just as easy to sell as what happened in 1914.

[Attrition]

Socialists always capitulate to the state, the SPD allied with the Freikorps in 1919 against the real Socialists. It's what they do.