"Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Latze
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 08 May 2010, 17:55

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1066

Post by Latze » 19 Aug 2014, 23:28

Post Number:#16 Postby ljadw on 08 Jan 2014, 21:52
"Everything Austria was doing was planned in collaboration with Germany, was approved by Germany, was ordered by Germany.
Any distinction between Germany and Austria is a non sequitur."

Post Number:#1004 Postby ljadw on 09 Aug 2014, 16:24
"Russia nor AH could afford a war, even a victorious war,a nd they knew it. And that's why both anxiously were searching to prevent a war between each other: only when Russia was cornered (by a full-scale invasion of Serbia) would it declare war on AH, that's why AH still was delaying a such invasion (they knew that they could not rely on the German promises of aid)."

Interesting.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1067

Post by JAG13 » 20 Aug 2014, 01:27

Jon Clarke wrote:
Jag13 wrote:You are right, he doesnt assign blame, he just says the report is false, which is actually worse since it goes beyond the "mistake" excuse usually floated by Grey and Lichnowsky and makes it sound as if "someone" just made it up. 
I think that you're getting a little desperate in your attempts to maintain the charge against Strachan. It clear that he meant that the idea put forward in the report was incorrect, not that Lichnowsky was being dishonest. I think perhaps you are reading too much into the term 'false' which almost certainly in the context Strachan was using it meant incorrect, not untrue or dishonest. The passage certainly bears no relation to your original accusation. As a matter of interest, didn't you check the relevant passage in Strachan before making your original post?
Did read Strachan, found funny that he used a the "mistake" in order to ignore the proposal Grey did make and make a carpet statement indicating the proposal was false. He actually goes further than Grey and Lichnowsky ever went in their denials which centered on a supposed intent to allow time for negotiations, not that there was no proposal or that it was false.
Jag13 wrote:...and Grey's cables still prove Strachan wrong, the proposal was very much real, but a likely German attack on Belgium gave him the opening he was looking for so he dropped the proposal, hence the "mistake".
Grey's telegrams do not prove Strachan wrong. The suggestion in Lichnowsky's first telegram regarding Britain guaranteeing the neutrality of France was indeed incorrect (or false to use his term). This idea is mentioned in Lichnowsky's first telegram about the British 'proposal' and arose during his morning conversation with Tyrrell, not Grey. As far as I am aware, Grey never mentioned that conversation in any of his telegrams. Strachan was therefore not wrong in what he wrote although I doubt that you will accept this as you seem to have dug yourself into a bit of a hole with your original accusation and seem reluctant to admit that you are wrong.
This is what Lichnowsky said:

"Sir Edward was still looking for new ways of avoiding the catastrophe. Sir W. Tyrrell called on me on the morning of the ist August to tell me that his chief still hoped to find a way out. Would we remain neutral if France did? I understood that we should then agree to spare France, but he had meant that we should remain altogether neutral — towards Russia also. That was the well-known "misunderstanding." Sir Edward had asked me to call in the afternoon. As he was at a meeting of the Cabinet, he called me up on the telephone, Sir W. Tyrrell having hurried to him at once. In the afternoon, however, he talked only about Belgian neutrality and the possibility that we and France might face one another in arms without attacking."

...and this is what Grey said:

"I have seen an incomplete publication. The circumstances were as follows: It was reported to me one day that the German Ambassador had suggested that Germany might remain neutral in a war between Russia and Austria, and also engage not to attack France, if we would remain neutral and secure the neutrality of France. I said at once that if the German Government thought such an arrangement possible I was sure we could secure it. It appeared, however, that what the Ambassador meant was that we should secure the neutrality of France if Germany went to war with Russia. This was quite a different proposal, and, as I supposed it in all probability to be incompatible with the terms of the Franco-Russian Alliance, it was not in my power to promise to secure it. Subsequently, the Ambassador sent for my private secretary and told him that as soon as the misunderstanding was cleared up, he had sent a second telegram to Berlin to cancel the impression produced by the first telegram he had sent on the subject. The first telegram has been published. This second telegram does not seem to have been published."

But all this is debunked by what Grey actually wrote to Bertie in his cables, where he said: "Now, the position was that Germany would agree not to attack France if France remained neutral in the event of war between Russia and Germany. If France could not take advantage of this position it was because she was bound by an alliance to which we were not parties...", so clearly both of them are lying.

None of this Strachan says, he glosses over the whole issue and claims simply the proposal was false not bothering to indicate it was actually true and further discussed even after any supposed "missunderstanding" had been cleared, it only failed when Bertie asked Grey if he was crazy.

Add to that the fact that the only reference to a missunderstanding comes from the people lying about the circumstances of the meeting, when it would have made perfect sense and it would actually have been the only way to enforce such pact, to make the broker of the pact guarantee it with their own military forces.

But somehow, the unsubstantiated claims of people obviously lying carry more weight for Strachan than the actual evidence.
As for the idea that 'a likely German attack on Belgium gave him the opening he was looking for', Grey had been aware since Bethmann's neutrality offer had been received on 30 July that Germany was almost certainly violate Belgian neutrality, so he did not need to make any proposals at all but nevertheless he still did.
Lichnowsky reinforced the point giving further weight to the possibility of a German strike through Belgium, had he been reliant only on the first inquiry he wouldnt have needed to almost kill Cambon by telling him they were on their own.


User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1068

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Aug 2014, 03:23

JAG13 wrote:He actually goes further than Grey and Lichnowsky ever went in their denials which centered on a supposed intent to allow time for negotiations, not that there was no proposal or that it was false.
You seem to not understand the term 'false' as used by Strachan, which in English is actually quite correct usage, and attaches blame to nobody.
JAG13 wrote:Lichnowsky reinforced the point giving further weight to the possibility of a German strike through Belgium, had he been reliant only on the first inquiry he wouldnt have needed to almost kill Cambon by telling him they were on their own.
So your problem here is that Lichnowsky was honest? The important details were already given away by Bethmann with his promise not to invade The Netherlands, to respect Belgian frontiers after the war, and to intend no gains at the expense of metropolitan France. Grey would have been perfectly entitled to seek Cabinet approval for an ultimatum at that point to insist Germany respect Belgium no matter what, if only the Cabinet had been not so inclined to avoid any confrontation, but as it was Grey had no power to act on his own in such a way, and needed the support of the majority to make a firm statement. It speaks well that he tried to still find a solution of any type after 29th July, and did so in a fairly balanced manner. He could have simply leaked Bethmann's neutrality bid in such a way as to ensure Parliamentary support, but he did not.

Lichnowsky also wanted peace and did his best to secure it, even though his own superiors were lying to him from his visit to Germany through his return to London and the outbreak of war. It should be noted that all the London ambassadors seemed to think they could settle the crisis in the same manner they had with the recent Balkan War crisis, where Germany had worked closely with Britain to prevent war. In the July Crisis Germany actively worked against Britain whilst feigning support, an attitude that proved fatal in the long run.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1069

Post by michael mills » 13 Jan 2016, 08:11

As far as British involvement in the war against Germany is concerned, the crucial decision to send the BEF to France to resist a German invasion was made at the 114th meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence on 23 August 1911. That decision was not made contingent on a German violation of Belgian neutrality; rather, the decision was that if war broke out between Germany and France, Britain would join France against Germany, regardless of whether the German forces moved through Belgium or not.

The participants at the meeting were Prime Minister Asquith, Lloyd George, Foreign Secretary Grey, Minister for War Haldane, First Lord of the Admiralty McKenna, Home Secretary Churchill, First Sea Lord Admiral Arthur Wilson, Director of Military Operations General Henry Wilson, Inspector-General of the Army General John French, Chief of the Imperial General Staff Field-Marshal Sir William Nicholson, Admiral Alexander Bethell, CID Secretary Ottley and CID Naval Assistant Secretary Hankey. Significantly, the three "radical" Cabinet Ministers who were known to oppose involvement in war, Harcourt, Crewe and Loreburn, were not invited.

The main issue at the meeting was not whether Britain would join France in a war against Germany, but how it would take action against Germany. The Navy wanted the war against Germany to be fought primarily by blockade, with the role of the Army being limited to raids and landings on the German seacoast, including on the Baltic coast. The Army wanted a Continental commitment, sending the BEF to France to reinforce the left wing of the French line. In the end, Prime Minister Asquith decided in favour of the Continental commitment, and ordered the Navy to provide the transport across the Channel.

The most interesting part of the decision in favour of the Continental commitment was the issue of where the BEF would be deployed. General Wilson proposed that it be deployed in the Maubeuge-Verdun area, where it could reinforce the French units resisting the German forces moving through the south-western corner of Belgium below the Meuse.

Churchill questioned that deployment on the basis that the German forces could cross the Meuse and sweep through the Maubeuge-Lille gap; he recommended that the BEF be deployed close to the coast, so that it could escape if the French were defeated along the Meuse.

General Wilson's response was crucial in that its revealed the basis of British strategic thinking. He maintained that Germany dared not alienate a Belgium that would otherwise accept a German violation below the Meuse.

In other words, Wilson believed that the German forces would move only south-east of the Meuse, and that Belgium would not oppose that move. If Belgium did not oppose the movement of German forces through its territory, then it would have surrendered its neutrality, and the treaty guaranteeing that neutrality, which both Britain and Germany were bound to uphold, would no longer be valid. In that case, the movement of German forces through Belgian territory would no longer constitute a violation of the treaty, and there would be no casus belli for Britain against Germany based on such a violation.

The fact that the CID agreed to join France in a war between it and Germany, even though General Wilson's planned deployment of the BEF assumed that there would technically be no German violation of Belgian neutrality, shows conclusively that a British decision to join France against Germany was absolutely not dependent on German violation of international law. Rather, the British Government's decision to join France in any war between it and Germany was based purely on what it perceived to be Britain's national interest, rather than on any specific action by Germany.

That decision made on 23 August 1911 simply repeated the position taken at earlier meetings, between December 1908 and March 1909, of a CID sub-committee set up to study the military needs of the Empire as influenced by the Continent. As recounted by Williamson in his book "The Politics of Grand Strategy: Britain and France prepare for War, 1904-1914":

Page 108:
The subcommittee viewed the continental issue in its broadest terms. Belgium, which had initially triggered British military concern about the Continent, continued to lose importance. An early Foreign Office memorandum, for example, suggested that the Cabinet decision to send help to France would "be more easily arrived at if German aggression had entailed a violation of the neutrality of Belgium, which Great Britain has guaranteed to maintain". But most of the committee, while sharing the Foreign Office's pragmatic realism, concluded that assistance to France could not be left to turn upon the "mere point of Belgian neutrality". Thus, they decided to investigate every possible location and method of exerting influence upon the Continent.
The bottom line is that the German invasion of Belgium on 4 August 1914 was irrelevant to Britain's decision to declare war on Germany; it simply served as an ostensible justification. Many years before 1914 the British Government had decided that if war broke out between France and Germany it would immediately join in that war on the side of France. That decision has been obfuscated by the fact that before 1914 the British Government had never given France any definite guarantee of military assistance, preferring to leave the French guessing.

woneil
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jun 2006, 04:40
Location: Near Washington, DC

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1070

Post by woneil » 13 Jan 2016, 08:58

This is to confuse planning with policy. It was and is a fundamental principle of the British Constitution that only with the support of the Cabinet can a prime minister act in the sovereign's name to go to war, and that moreover no cabinet can bind its successor. A sub-group of the Cabinet in 1911 could no more make a binding decision for war (or troop deployment) than you or I could. It was a contingency plan and could be nothing more.

It was quite evident in 1911 of course (and well before) that a re-run of 1870 had great potential to upend the balance of power, making Imperial Germany effectively the master of the Continent. (It had not been nearly so threatening in the circumstances of 1870-71 itself, but matters were very different by the early 1900s.) Generation on generation of British statesmen, ever since the 1500s in fact, had regarded such a situation as intolerably dangerous to Britain. Thus in event of a German invasion in the west the odds were heavily weighted in favor of British intervention. Nevertheless, it required a very difficult process in July-August 1914 before the Asquith Cabinet would line up behind war. They (very rightly) feared that to go to war would sound the death knell for the Liberal Party and in the end two of the members resigned rather than support the decision. In this context the violation of Belgian neutrality, which was deeply offensive to Liberal principle, served a very important symbolic role in swinging support behind intervention. In the end it was the threat that the the Government would fall if divided and that this would simply open the way for Bonar Law and his alliance of Tories and Liberal Unionists (who would certainly support war if only as a diversion from Home Rule) that tipped the balance even more than the rape of Belgium.

In fact, whatever the CID said, no one took the notion of intervention entirely seriously, as even a cursory review of the deplorable state of the Army's readiness for war on the Continent will convince any objective observer.
William D. O'Neil
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1071

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 10:12

That's an analysis based on Bagehot's "decorative"* constitution, not the reality of power. Since 1688 England (Britain 1707) has been a secular republic with an executive president of sorts. The first Minister/Prime Minister is the sovereign as along as he/she commands a Commons majority. Manoeuvring the Cabinet and the the Commons was an act of power that was relatively easy in 1914, perhaps easier than having a crack at the Boer in 1899.

*[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engli ... n#Contents "He also divided the constitution into two components: the "dignified" (that part which is symbolic) and the "efficient" (the way things actually work and get done)."

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1072

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2016, 14:29

Hi Attrition,

?????????????????

A "secular republic" since 1688?

What, with a hereditary Protestant monarch able to dismiss governments, the Church of England as state religion, Catholics barred from the vote until the 19th Century, etc., etc.?

Doesn't sound very secular or republican to me, even if it was always rather less than a continental-style absolute monarchy.

Cheers,

Sid.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1073

Post by AJFFM » 13 Jan 2016, 21:11

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Attrition,

?????????????????

A "secular republic" since 1688?

What, with a hereditary Protestant monarch able to dismiss governments, the Church of England as state religion, Catholics barred from the vote until the 19th Century, etc., etc.?

Doesn't sound very secular or republican to me, even if it was always rather less than a continental-style absolute monarchy.

Cheers,

Sid.
The last monarch to dismiss a government, which did not lose the support in the commons, was the government before Lord North's in the 1770s. After that it was pretty much what Attrition described (and it was not lost on American observers of the 19th century).

As for secularism, well compared with the rest of the world the UK was a paradise.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1074

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 21:19

That's the dignified part. In 1688, Parliament sacked the king and then employed two replacements (William of Orange and his squeeze, Mary, Charlie II's daughter) under a new contract, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, that formalised the situation that had obtained after Cromwell's lad got the sack. Under the act the "monarchs" (two mon-archs?!?!?) accepted subordination. Every other fake has done the same. In 1936, the [de facto] president, Stanley Baldwin sacked the king, Thick Eddie because he could, Eddie having accepted the usual terms and conditions of employment - he was as much a hireling as the rest.

Check the small print before signing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Oath_Act_1688

The Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mary c 6) is an Act of the Parliament of England. It was passed in 1689. The preamble noted that "by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realm" the monarchs of England had taken a solemn oath at their coronation to maintain the statute laws and customs of the country and of its inhabitants, but the text of this oath had become partly meaningless over time, "framed in doubtful Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknown". It established a single uniform oath to be taken by future monarchs at their coronation, and also established that this oath was to be taken by William III and Mary II when they were crowned.

The oath was fundamentally different from the traditional coronation oath which recognized laws as being the grant of the King whereas the Act's oath sought to bind the King to rule according to the law agreed in parliament.[3] (my bold)

The oath was shorter than the one used in 1660, removing a number of awkward phrases and references to past monarchs; a significant alteration was the explicit inclusion of an oath to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law", rather than the somewhat more vague promise to "Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under [my] Government."

This Act was partly in force in Great Britain at the end of 2010.[4]

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1075

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 21:25

~~~~~The last monarch to dismiss a government, which did not lose the support in the commons, was the government before Lord North's in the 1770s. After that it was pretty much what Attrition described~~~~~

It's not really my field, I'm too familiar with fiction and it's bred contempt. I do recall some history man writing that Geo III's meddling in politics was greater than his two predecessors because he was a native English-speaker and wanted to exert some political authority. Notice how he got put out of the way "because he was ill" and replaced by his lad? His poking his bugle to other peoples' business, especially using patronage as if he were the de facto president, was also a motive for some, when he got shunted.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1076

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2016, 21:41

Hi AJFFM,

Lord North's government was nearly a century after 1688, and the fact that similar dismissals did not occur later in the UK does not mean that they couldn't have.

Indeed, the last monarch to dismiss a government under our system was our present Queen, who, through her Governor General, dismissed Australia's Gough Whitlam about 40 years ago - to great constitutional concern there.

Of course, in practice, the monarch would be foolish in the extreme to exercise such arbitrary powers as they retain if they want their institution to survive.

But perhaps only within my lifetime (which nearly coincides with the current Queen's reign) has the UK really begun to resemble a "secular republic" with only residual trappings of state religion and imperial monarchy.

Queen Victoria still tampered with some legislation and the abdication crisis was tied up with the requirements of the state religion. As late as 1955 the Queen's sister was unable to make the marriage she wanted and Prince Charles was restricted in his choice of wife by religious consitutional considerations. Within the last year there was a legal row over Prince Charles's direct access to the Queen's ministers.

Still, messy and ill-defined though it is, I like our system of government - if "system" is the right word, which I doubt.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1077

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 21:50

I think you're missing the point, since 1688 the "monarch" hasn't been sovereign, it's in the contract and job description. If Liz binned Gough Whitlam, it was on orders from above, from Washington via London, not the act of a sovereign. Remember what happened when the British state tried to pursue and independent foreign policy in 1956? Since the disasters in Asia 1941-1942, Britain has been a US protectorate. The state has had only one policy since the Suez conspiracy, to maintain its status as chief jackal of the US empire.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1078

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2016, 22:41

Hi Attrition,

You are drifting close to conspiracy theory and hyperbole.

The proposition I was addressing was that since 1688 the UK had effectively been a "secular republic". This was clearly not the case until, perhaps, recently, though the drift has long been in that direction.

However reduced, the UK has still not sunk to the level of a "US protectorate".

During the initial Falklands Crisis, the USA wanted a negotiated solution between two useful Cold War allies. Margaret Thatcher (and Galtieri) decided otherwise. The US then backed the British with key military hardware.

Just a couple of years ago the British parliament voted not to intervene against Assad in Syria over his use of biochemical weapons. The US Administration, which had until then appeared to be even more in favour of such intervention, then shied away itself. Sometimes the tail can wag the dog!

Last year the UK signed up to the Chinese competitor to the IMF against US preferences.

The fact that US and UK interests should usually coincide need surprise nobody. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they are always joined at the hip.

I would suggest that you are oversimplifying the nature of an undoubtedly lopsided and unequal relationship.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1079

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 23:56

I think you're retreating into slogans.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: "Germany was the only responsible for WW1"

#1080

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Jan 2016, 13:29

Hi Attrition,

Interesting start, but you leave me nothing to reply to.

Please elaborate.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. I think we can both be accused of drifting off thread!

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”