Berlin behind Sarajevo? A strange claim...

[AJFFM]

The civilized personality seems to be determined to a large extent by it's fears. These fears go over from generation to generation, keeping the mentalities alive for millenia.

That is just pure nonsense. Germany society in terms of thinking, education and outlook was light years different between 1870 and 1933. In 1870 most people would be born, live and die in the same landkreis without stepping a meter outside its borders. To them the idea of the other or the different did not even exist because the only other they would find was the guy who spoke Danish, Dutch, French or some unintelligible German dialect.

Connecting them to Nazism is nonsensical to say the least.

Just like the separation fears seem to determine the eastern European mentalities, it is the xenophobia and hunger fears which seem play the leading role in the western European ones.

Again, there is no "common mentality" of a nation because "Nations" and "Ethnic Groups" are 19th century salon constructs that meant nothing to the illiterate shepherd or farmer.

If anything the common man, that is the 90% of Poles who were not Nobility\Gentry were quite happy to be under Prussian\Russian\Austrian rule.

These both statements point to an explanation in the circumstances of the early days of the agriculture/civilization in Europe.

So, if Fischer has had been looking for the roots of any mentality, not only the German one, in the past, and not only in a past that near as XIX century, but in the past that far as Stonehenge - he would have had my very interested ear, indeed.

This is my thinking, of course. You are quite free to think it irrelevant.

Europe did not live in a vacuum. Every single region in the world saw the same thing yet did not see the upheavals Europe saw nor did the wider population suffer since they barely knew things happened outside their villages.

Didn't the Otzi man (who died 5300 years ago) have relatives still living not far from the place they found his body?

[ljadw]

Personally, I would not give that much importance on the 1912 IWC:the decision to start a war at the first occasion has been "made" already before 1912:since 1905,Germany was provoking ,in the hope that this would result in a war .And every time, there was no war .The result was still peace .Sarajevo was agift from the Gods :with a little pressure,AH would attack Serbia,this would result in the intervention of Russia,which would result in the intervention of Germany,which would result in the intervention of France (Britain was considered quantité negligable).And Bob's your uncle .

But here again,the outcome was different,what's proving that big plans are fallible .

[Slobodan Cekic]

The civilized personality seems to be determined to a large extent by it's fears. These fears go over from generation to generation, keeping the mentalities alive for millenia.

That is just pure nonsense.

That would take us far away from the point of the discussion here if I now try explaining what I really mean. And if you know straight away this is a nonsense, it really doesn't make sense trying to explain it, anyway, so I ll spare us both any further explanations.

[Slobodan Cekic]

Personally, I would not give that much importance on the 1912 IWC:the decision to start a war at the first occasion has been "made" already before 1912:since 1905,Germany was provoking ,in the hope that this would result in a war .And every time, there was no war .The result was still peace .Sarajevo was agift from the Gods :with a little pressure,AH would attack Serbia,this would result in the intervention of Russia,which would result in the intervention of Germany,which would result in the intervention of France (Britain was considered quantité negligable).And Bob's your uncle .

But here again,the outcome was different,what's proving that big plans are fallible .

Germany and AH went into an military alliance ca.1880 Ever faster growing military expenditures in the period after that can only mean this alliance had warlike intentions. I think they had their minds set on war then already.

But if some country wants a war, it can always get one. No one is going to let an incursion into it's territory unanswered, for example. The moment to start a war should be the one your side has enough superiority to beat the enemy with some certainty. I do not think the good pretexts are that paramount. Important, yes.

For obvious reasons, the Germans wanted to prop-up their weaker fleet as much as possible, with the possibility of transfer east-west without British interference. So, first finish the Kiel Canal, and Robert is your mother's brother ; occupying Paris shortly after 'll then prove the Nelly is your aunt, as well.
I think the Germans run out of luck cause Robert and Nelly divorced at the worst moment, right in the summer of 1914

Now , why do you think the year of 1905 that important? Port Arthur, Russian defeat, Russian revolution..? Don't know a thing on the German stance to Russia during this revolution of 1905.

[Slobodan Cekic]

.

[AJFFM]

Personally, I would not give that much importance on the 1912 IWC:the decision to start a war at the first occasion has been "made" already before 1912:since 1905,Germany was provoking ,in the hope that this would result in a war .And every time, there was no war .The result was still peace .Sarajevo was agift from the Gods :with a little pressure,AH would attack Serbia,this would result in the intervention of Russia,which would result in the intervention of Germany,which would result in the intervention of France (Britain was considered quantité negligable).And Bob's your uncle .

But here again,the outcome was different,what's proving that big plans are fallible .

If it was "made" before 1905 how come they waited till 1914 when they could have used any of the crises before (especially the 1905 Russo-Japanese war and subsequent revolt) to launch one?

Why wait till France exceeded Germany in Active and Reserve manpower pools, adopted the 3 year service law, financed Russian expansion of their rail network (partly built by German companies) as well as Russian rearmament program. All this while doing nothing to increase the size of their army or even upgrade their weapons systems except in a navy that was directed against Britain which was never included in any battle scenario.

[ljadw]

Because of domestic reasons : the epoch was over where the ruling classes could start a war ,without the approval of the population = without the consent of the SPD,war was impossible .And if the others (Russia,France) refused to fight but yielded to the German demands,Germany could not start a war .

In 1908,Germany used the annexation of Bisnia-Herzegovina to provoke a war : when Russia and Serbia protested against the annexation,Germany demanded a PUBLIC capitulation from both countries (hoping that they would refuse),otherwise,AH would invade Serbia ,which would force Russia to declare war on AH,which would give Germany the excuse to declare war on Russia (the SPD would give its consent),which would result in a French DOW on Germany .

But, to the anger of Germany, Russia and Serbia capitulated,and the chance for war was bygone .

And,the chance to provoke a war in the west was even more smaller : it depended on the French to lose their calm and to declare war :2 times,(1905 and 1911)the Germans provoked the French about something insignifiant (Morocco) and 2 times the French refused to fight for Morocco :again the chance for war was lost .The SPD would never give its consent to a war of aggression against France,only for a defensive war ,thus the tric was to disguise the war of aggression in a defensive war .
And in 1914,something happened in France that risked to crush all chances to start a war : the victory of the left parties in the legislative elections: the three year service law would be abandoned ,the same for the alliance with Russia (although it was already moribund before 1914):in 1908 the French (Clemenceau) had refused to support the Russians about Bosnia-Herzegovina, thus,why would French parliament (dominated by Jaures) support the Russians in 1914?Jaures (and the French socialists) was a public enemy of the Czar ,the 3 year service law and of the French military .

[Slobodan Cekic]

In 1908,Germany used the annexation of Bisnia-Herzegovina to provoke a war : when Russia and Serbia protested against the annexation,Germany demanded a PUBLIC capitulation from both countries (hoping that they would refuse),otherwise,AH would invade Serbia ,which would force Russia to declare war on AH,which would give Germany the excuse to declare war on Russia (the SPD would give its consent),which would result in a French DOW on Germany .

But, to the anger of Germany, Russia and Serbia capitulated,and the chance for war was bygone .

And,the chance to provoke a war in the west was even more smaller : it depended on the French to lose their calm and to declare war :2 times,(1905 and 1911)the Germans provoked the French about something insignifiant (Morocco) and 2 times the French refused to fight for Morocco :again the chance for war was lost

Interesting.. But how come France supported Russia in July 1914, then..?

Are you sure Germany really wanted an European war in 1905, 1908, 1911..? Or was it rather concessions ?

For example, AH (with German support) could have still attacked Serbia 1908 in spite of the Russian and Serbian concessions, if they simply wanted the war right then. But they could then be sure to get a general European/World war, if they were to start it under such circumstances. If they haven't considered themselves ready for this at the time, they would back down, then.

I guess, the CP would gladly go to war with Russia 1908. Russia couldn't get enough support for it's position in Bosnia, so it backed off.
If attacked in spite of that, Russia would certainly have the support of her allies.

[ljadw]

In Germany,the key for war of peace was in the hands of the SPD :the SPD would only approve a DOW if Germany was threatened or attacked .or if the Junkers could convince the SPD that Germany was threatened .In 1908 Russia and Serbia protested against the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but this was not a threat to Germany:Bülow could not tell the SPD: we must declare war on Russia because it is proresting against the Austrian annexation of BH .

For july 1914 : there are no proofs that France supported Russia : it was the opposite,as usual,France abandoned Russia,to the anger of Germany : there was no French DOW,which forced the Germans to improvise:Germany had to declare war,and invent a ridicule reason for its DOW.

For the two Moroccan crisis: it is obvious that Germany was not interested in Morocco:2 times it threatened France with war over Morocco and the result was that they said : we are not interested in Morocco,give us a (worthless) piece of Equatorial Africa .

For 1908 : Germany received no concessions from Russia :thus,why was it meddling in the Bosnian crisis ?

[Slobodan Cekic]

..and let Germany invent a ridiculous reason for it's DOW to France . )) ..Interesting

Must read a bit about, then I 'lll write again

[AJFFM]

Because of domestic reasons : the epoch was over where the ruling classes could start a war ,without the approval of the population = without the consent of the SPD,war was impossible .And if the others (Russia,France) refused to fight but yielded to the German demands,Germany could not start a war .

Some mighty mental gymnastics eh. Germany will go to war for some Austrian inbred nobleman who no one cared about not even his own uncle but not go to war when it was publicly humiliated in the Moroccan crisis when actual real German interests were trampled on.

In 1908,Germany used the annexation of Bisnia-Herzegovina to provoke a war : when Russia and Serbia protested against the annexation,Germany demanded a PUBLIC capitulation from both countries (hoping that they would refuse),otherwise,AH would invade Serbia ,which would force Russia to declare war on AH,which would give Germany the excuse to declare war on Russia (the SPD would give its consent),which would result in a French DOW on Germany .

But, to the anger of Germany, Russia and Serbia capitulated,and the chance for war was bygone .

And your proof is ...?

And,the chance to provoke a war in the west was even more smaller : it depended on the French to lose their calm and to declare war :2 times,(1905 and 1911)the Germans provoked the French about something insignifiant (Morocco) and 2 times the French refused to fight for Morocco :again the chance for war was lost .The SPD would never give its consent to a war of aggression against France,only for a defensive war ,thus the tric was to disguise the war of aggression in a defensive war .
And in 1914,something happened in France that risked to crush all chances to start a war : the victory of the left parties in the legislative elections: the three year service law would be abandoned ,the same for the alliance with Russia (although it was already moribund before 1914):in 1908 the French (Clemenceau) had refused to support the Russians about Bosnia-Herzegovina, thus,why would French parliament (dominated by Jaures) support the Russians in 1914?Jaures (and the French socialists) was a public enemy of the Czar ,the 3 year service law and of the French military .

I can't follow your logic. SPD was against a war against France which it voted for despite Germany declaring war first?

As for the 3 year service law, wasn't it passed by the left wing governments of 1910 parliaments and the service extension laws in 1905 passed by another left wing government?

Mental gymnastics can get you so far.

[ljadw]

the SPD voted for the war,after (and because) the German government lied that France had attacked German cities and after (and because)the DOW on Russie who created an atmosphere of hysteria and paranoia,and even than, the SPD was still talking about their French friends : the war of aggression against France was disguised as a defensive war .

About the 3 year service law : it had been voted after and because the second Morocco crises,when France discovered that it was on its own :Russia refused to help France ,and the French military said that without a military service of 3 years, France would lose the war .

But,very soon the law became very impopular and the nationalist parties were crushed in the election .

Results of the French 1914 elections:

Left (without the socialists) :349 seats

Socialists :126

Right : 75 (- 74

Others :51

The results were very clear : the nationalist parties who were behind the 3 years law were crushed : they lost the half of their seats .

[ljadw]

Some mighty mental gymnastics eh. Germany will go to war for some Austrian inbred nobleman who no one cared about not even his own uncle but not go to war when it was publicly humiliated in the Moroccan crisis when actual real German interests were trampled on.

.

NO : Sarajevo was only an excuse.Germany did not care about Sarajevo .

Germany wanted a war with France, but such a war was not possible without a war with Russia (unless France started him first,which France refused to do) ,and a war with Russia could only happen if there was a conflict between Russia and AH (unless Russia started the war,which it did not)and a conflict between Russia and AH could only happen if AH would provoke Russia to the point that Russia would be forced to declare war on AH,which would give Germany the excuse to declare war on Russia,which would force France to declare war on Germany .

But the whole German plan failed in 1914:

1) AH refused to provoke Russia and there was no war between both countries.

2) This forced Germany to enter the stage and declare war on Russia inventing the story that the Russian mobilisation threatened Germany (this proved to every one that the whole thing was set on)

3)France also refused to follow the German logic and remained neutral (although it was obliged following its treaty to help Russia immediately .

4)this forced Germany to improvise :if France was not declaring war on Germany,Germany would declare war on France and it would use every pretext that was available .

And again about the SPD : in his speech of 4 august before the Reichstag,Haase (leader of the SPD) approved the DOW's,saying that the SPD would not abandon the Fatherland when it was attacked by Russia (France was not mentioned)

Morality : good plans do not benefit,if one is abandoned by one's accomplice and if the enemy is not doing what one has proclaimed he would do .

[ljadw]

..and let Germany invent a ridiculous reason for it's DOW to France . )) ..Interesting

Must read a bit about, then I 'lll write again

The story of French aircraft attacking (in 1914!) German cities is well-known and has already been discussed

[Slobodan Cekic]

..and let Germany invent a ridiculous reason for it's DOW to France . )) ..Interesting

Must read a bit about, then I 'lll write again

The story of French aircraft attacking (in 1914!) German cities is well-known and has already been discussed

Well, Voisins, yes; but with some in-flight refuelling, Nuremberg may have not been too far..
Good example for anything being good enough as a pretext for a war.

I think I owe someone the data on GDP and population of the Entente and Central Powers.
At the war's end Entente had 2,5x the GDP and 1,6x the population of the Central Powers.
So Entente produced ca. 3 times more planes, and 2 times more machine guns during the war, for example.
German advantage in the quality of the army and it's leadership had to be quite pronounced, to balance this out for so long.

The data comes from this article:

http://www.voxeu.org/article/four-myths ... -1914-1918

The author says, among other things:


"In fact, the record is clear, despite attempts to falsify it (described by Herwig 1987). There was no inadvertent conflict."