The Russian Origins of the First World War

[ljadw]

If one would show Dönitz a Tiger I and a Tiger II,would he indicate which one was the Tiger II ?

No, but he would indicate that those workers welding the Tiger steel plates should immediately return to their UBoat welding duties.

Yes,but ,no one would ask him his opinion if it was better to produce the Tiger II or the Tiger I .

[LWD]

Jagow was not a military expert,

That is an assumption on your part. You supplied nothing to support this position to date..

If Jagow was a military expert, he would not be foreign secretary :a foreign secretary needs no military knowledge .

Again with the assumptions. I would argue that a foreign sectretary does indeed need at least some military knowledge, given the time and the culture I would expect many to have more than their position stricktly required. So your position is supported by niether fact nor logic but just more very questionable assumptions.

Moltke was no diplomatic expert .

Is this based on any substance at all or is it just more assumptions you are pulling out of thin air.
[qouote] Afaics, Jagow had no knowledge of the Schlieffen/Moltke plan .[/quote]
And that's relevant how?

Before 1914,Moltke was demanding ,not a preventive war,but a war of aggression against France and Belgium, as soon as possible,waiting would mean that Russia could make the Schlieffen plan impossible to execute,or ,if it was successful,Russia could continue the war,what Germany could not afford .

Jagow was parotting Moltke, he was his masters voice .Thus as such, his opinion was superfluous.

I don't see why this opinion of yours should carry any more weight than others most of which have been shown to lack much if any substance at all.

[ljadw]

Had Bevin any military knowledge? Acheson ? Hull? Did the secretary-generals of NATO have military knowledge ? Dulles ? Rogers ? Kissinger ? Etc,

Bryan ? Wilson ?

In Prussia, the rule was that only military could become Kriegsminister.This indicates a strict separation between civilians and military .

[ljadw]

Post 169 by Aiwac : I am basing myself on the statements of people like Jagow on the military potential of Russia .

My reply : You should not do this . Jagov's statements are the last but one to be used to have a picture of the military potential of Russia (the last being those of a member of the Reichstag /journalist).A lieutenant of the general staff would have more knowledge than Jagow .

[Jon Clarke]

Afaics, Jagow had no knowledge of the Schlieffen/Moltke plan.

Although Jagow/Bethmann were not aware of Moltke's intention to take Liege by a coup de main, they were certainly aware of the general deployment plan. Annika Mombauer discusses Jagow's pre-war knowledge of the Schlieffen/Moltke plan to invade Belgium in her biography of Moltke:

The new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [Jagow] was so concerned about the Belgian question that he also talked to the Kaiser about it. According to their conversation, Moltke had clearly done the same, for the Kaiser told Jagow: 'Yes, yes, I have already discussed with Moltke that the operational plan should be changed.' In the aftermath of the meeting, Moltke had sought advice from other officers, as Jagow found out from General von Watter in Munster. The majority had been against a change of plan, since they considered the march through Belgium a necessity. As Jagow remembered after the war: 'Moltke himself told me in 1914, with reference to our earlier conversation, that he had checked the matter thoroughly.' Jagow was told that the march through Belgium was 'unfortunately unavoidable'. Moreover, as Jagow informed the Reichsarchiv, he had known about the General Staffs strategic intentions even before his appointment in 1913: 'The General Staff's deployment plan was generally known to me long before my appointment as Secretary of State in the Auswartiges Amt.'

[Latze]

Besides, the discussion about the annexation of Galicia does not prove that Russia did not fear a break-up of AH:the discussion about Galicia was done AFTER the AH DOW and from the assumptions that Russia would win and that this would result in the end of AH .A Russian victory would result in the end of AH,and there was nothing Russia could do about this .

A AH victory also would result in the end of AH and there was nothing Vienna could do about it .

Obviously you did not even bother to read the literature I quoted. The Russian statements concerning a possible break-up of the Austrian empire were all pre-war. Your assertion to the contrary is simple wrong. Why do you make stuff up?

That they were pre-war is irrelevant, because a break-up of the AH empire would only be possible if there was a war (something which did not depend on Russia) and IF Russia won this war .

Obviously you still did not bother to read the literature I quoted. The Russian statements concerning a possible break-up of the Austrian empire were based on the assumption of internal upheaval in case of Franz Josefs death. Again, you just made something up from thin air because you don't have a leg to stand on...

[ljadw]

I have 2 legs ,even 3 legs : the breaking-up of AH would not mean that Russia could occupy Austrian Poland .Besides,these statements confirm my claim that such break-up would be very dangerous for Russia, because it would be forced to occupy (if Germany would consent) Galicia,to prevent the creation of an independent Polish state,something which would doom Russia .

It is the same situation as in the ME : the neighbours of Iraq are doing their best to preserve Iraq as an independent state, the alternative being an independent Kurdistan .

[ljadw]

AFTER the start of the war with AH (6 august) Sazonov proposed to create an autonomous kingdom of Poland .

[ljadw]

. Moreover, as Jagow informed the Reichsarchiv, he had known about the General Staffs strategic intentions even before his appointment in 1913: 'The General Staff's deployment plan was generally known to me long before my appointment as Secretary of State in the Auswartiges Amt.'[/i]

I remain sceptical about this claim : before becoming Foreign Secretary,Jagow was ambassador in Italy : why should an ambassador in Italy have knowledge of the attack plan in the West ?

[Latze]

I have 2 legs ,even 3 legs : the breaking-up of AH would not mean that Russia could occupy Austrian Poland .Besides,these statements confirm my claim that such break-up would be very dangerous for Russia, because it would be forced to occupy (if Germany would consent) Galicia,to prevent the creation of an independent Polish state,something which would doom Russia .

Let's see what your initial claim was (post 148):

No,the diasppearance of AH would be catastrophic for Russia : they were as tweedledum and tweedledee.If AH disappeared the AH Poles would become independent, and an independent Polish state would be as a magnet for the "Russian Poles "of Congress Poland,and if these became independent,what about the Fins,the Baltics,the Ukrainians ?

And,it would be the same for AH if Russia exploded .

Both knew it,and,that's why both tried to prevent the irreparable:AH was not invading Serbia and Russia was not declaring war

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?

[Latze]

Again, do you have any source for your wild claim? The reason for the late DoW given in the AH official history (vol. 1, 2nd. ed., p. 156) is much more convincing: delay as much as possible any Russian interference in Austrian mobilization and deployment in Galicia due to excessive fear of Russian cavalry raids. Why should I trust your assessment and not the one from a proper military authority like the authors of the OH?

The AH official history is contradicted by the letter from Franz Jozef on 1 august,where he is saying that AH would intervene against Russia in an undefined distant future,and it would also depend on what would do the Germans .Unless he was gaga and telling nonsense,we must accept what he said .Besides, we must also accept that what he said was not his personal opinion,but the opinion of the AH establishment (war and peace factions),unless there are proofs that FJ was practising a secret parallel foreign policy,of which Berchtold knew nothing .

In fact your "letter" from Franz Josef was a telegram. It was published as document number 601 in vol. 3 of "Die Deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch" by Karl Kautsky (Charlottenburg, 1919). What does said telegram say in the original? "Sobald mein Generalstab erfahren hat, daß Du entschlossen bist, den Krieg gegen Russland sogleich zu beginnen und mit aller Kraft durchzuführen, stand auch hier der Entschluss fest, die überwiegenden Hauptkräfte gegen Russland zu versammeln." Indeeed the Austrian monarch is using the past tense! He is not referring to actions 'in an undefined distant future' as you claim but about things already decided...
This is also corroborated by another telegram from Tschirschky to Berlin the next day (document 672) "Graf Berthold bestätigt mir, was schon im Antworttelegramm des Kaisers Franz Joseph an unseren Alleegnädigsten Herrn zugesagt ist, daß von hier alles nur mögliche geschehen wird, um mit den Hauptkräften sofort Russland aktiv entgegenzutreten."

Maybe you should not rely on imprecise translation on http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archiv ... 50210.html for the far reaching theories you make up.

No : what is FJ saying ?

Our decision is to gather our main forces against Russia,immediately when my general staff has learned that you are determined to start immediately the war against Russia and to execute him with all forces.

1) You will notice that FJ is not mentioning a DOW

2)You will notice that FJ is not mentioning an offensive against Russia

3)You will notice that FJ is not mentioning a date

He is saying : we will gather our main forces against Russia when we learn that you are starting a war with Russia and execute him with all your forces .


4)You will notice that he is saying : when we learn this,we will gather our main forces : when would this "gathering " be finished ?

The whole thing is a typical exemple of an empty promise : AH was trying to get out of its "obligations".

About the telegram from Tschirschky : he is saying : Berchtold is confirming that Vienna is doing all what is possible to send her main forces to the border with Russia .

1)you will notice that Berchtold is saying : we do what is possible (= the usual excuse from some one who will do nothing)

2)you will notice that Berchtold is not mentioning a date

3)you will notice that he is not speaking of a DOW, neither of an offensive .

4) What is the meaning of : aktif entgegenzutreten ? It is not :starting an offensive, otherwise ,he would have said :Eine Offensive zu beginnen.

"aktif entgegenzutreten" is that vague that it is very suspicious .

Your translation of the German text into English is simply wrong. I am a native speaker of German, I hold an university degree in English Literature. Franz Josef is using the past tense [stand auch hier der Entschluß fest]: "As we have learned that you decided to begin the war against Russia immediately and prosecute it with full force we also decided to mass the main force against Russia." Tschirschky says that it is an "Antworttelegramm", the reaction of German urgings not to be so foolish to try and persecute an offensive against Serbia while defending against Russia. These measures will be made "sofort" = immediately.
How can you confidently state that he would have used a certain phrase like "Eine Offensive zu beginnen." ? Are you able to communicate with the dead?

[ljadw]

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 .

[Latze]

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 .

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.

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.

[ljadw]

Again, do you have any source for your wild claim? The reason for the late DoW given in the AH official history (vol. 1, 2nd. ed., p. 156) is much more convincing: delay as much as possible any Russian interference in Austrian mobilization and deployment in Galicia due to excessive fear of Russian cavalry raids. Why should I trust your assessment and not the one from a proper military authority like the authors of the OH?

The AH official history is contradicted by the letter from Franz Jozef on 1 august,where he is saying that AH would intervene against Russia in an undefined distant future,and it would also depend on what would do the Germans .Unless he was gaga and telling nonsense,we must accept what he said .Besides, we must also accept that what he said was not his personal opinion,but the opinion of the AH establishment (war and peace factions),unless there are proofs that FJ was practising a secret parallel foreign policy,of which Berchtold knew nothing .

In fact your "letter" from Franz Josef was a telegram. It was published as document number 601 in vol. 3 of "Die Deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch" by Karl Kautsky (Charlottenburg, 1919). What does said telegram say in the original? "Sobald mein Generalstab erfahren hat, daß Du entschlossen bist, den Krieg gegen Russland sogleich zu beginnen und mit aller Kraft durchzuführen, stand auch hier der Entschluss fest, die überwiegenden Hauptkräfte gegen Russland zu versammeln." Indeeed the Austrian monarch is using the past tense! He is not referring to actions 'in an undefined distant future' as you claim but about things already decided...
This is also corroborated by another telegram from Tschirschky to Berlin the next day (document 672) "Graf Berthold bestätigt mir, was schon im Antworttelegramm des Kaisers Franz Joseph an unseren Alleegnädigsten Herrn zugesagt ist, daß von hier alles nur mögliche geschehen wird, um mit den Hauptkräften sofort Russland aktiv entgegenzutreten."

Maybe you should not rely on imprecise translation on http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archiv ... 50210.html for the far reaching theories you make up.

No : what is FJ saying ?

Our decision is to gather our main forces against Russia,immediately when my general staff has learned that you are determined to start immediately the war against Russia and to execute him with all forces.

1) You will notice that FJ is not mentioning a DOW

2)You will notice that FJ is not mentioning an offensive against Russia

3)You will notice that FJ is not mentioning a date

He is saying : we will gather our main forces against Russia when we learn that you are starting a war with Russia and execute him with all your forces .


4)You will notice that he is saying : when we learn this,we will gather our main forces : when would this "gathering " be finished ?

The whole thing is a typical exemple of an empty promise : AH was trying to get out of its "obligations".

About the telegram from Tschirschky : he is saying : Berchtold is confirming that Vienna is doing all what is possible to send her main forces to the border with Russia .

1)you will notice that Berchtold is saying : we do what is possible (= the usual excuse from some one who will do nothing)

2)you will notice that Berchtold is not mentioning a date

3)you will notice that he is not speaking of a DOW, neither of an offensive .

4) What is the meaning of : aktif entgegenzutreten ? It is not :starting an offensive, otherwise ,he would have said :Eine Offensive zu beginnen.

"aktif entgegenzutreten" is that vague that it is very suspicious .

Your translation of the German text into English is simply wrong. I am a native speaker of German, I hold an university degree in English Literature. Franz Josef is using the past tense [stand auch hier der Entschluß fest]: "As we have learned that you decided to begin the war against Russia immediately and prosecute it with full force we also decided to mass the main force against Russia." Tschirschky says that it is an "Antworttelegramm", the reaction of German urgings not to be so foolish to try and persecute an offensive against Serbia while defending against Russia. These measures will be made "sofort" = immediately.
How can you confidently state that he would have used a certain phrase like "Eine Offensive zu beginnen." ? Are you able to communicate with the dead?

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 .

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

[ljadw]

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 .