Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#16

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Jun 2014, 16:47

peterhof wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:Please advise everyone what you will accept in the way of evidence
All genuine historical documents and unbiased opinions drawn from them.
Thats good, you must now accept the following then;
"When the Austro-Hungarian minister in Belgrade, Vladimir Baron von Giesl, returning to his post on 7 July after a vacation in France, reported to Berchtold for instructions, he came away with the very decisive order: “However the Serbs react to the ultimatum, you must break off relations and it must come to war.”" (Fellner in Wilson[ed] - p.15)
Further sourced to the following; Kriegsarchiv Wien Nachiass b/61 (Hubka) Nr. 25. Wenn Kriegsgefahr droht, quoted in Rauchensteiner, Tod des Doppeladlers p. 75.

Three respected historians all agree the veracity of the above and have different outlooks on the war so cannot be accused of being biased in a particular way.
peterhof wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
and what you will dismiss out of hand just because it is not in an eighty year old book.
Mere opinions unsupported by documents such as Strachan's quaint notion that Germany had decided to mobilize before being notified of Russian mobilization.
The problem here is that Strachan does support his 'opinions' and work in general quite comprehensively, if anything he tends to be rather mainstream and avoids extreme viewpoints. He is regarded very highly by other historians of WWI, as is Mombauer who also has the same conclusion from studying the German archives etc that you criticise Strachan for reaching. Just because you don't like it does not make their conclusion wrong.
peterhof wrote:Sidney Bradshaw Fay published his two volumes in 1928/30 with a fourteenth printing in 1950 which includes 10 pages of Supplementary Notes. Some eighty years later, there are AFAIK no errors of fact that have been discovered in Fay's work. For this reason Fay has become my 'go to' reference historian for the cause of WW1. Albertini's work came later but does not improve on Fay and shows evidence of bias. If there is some compelling reason why Fay should not be cited, please state it.
I must say that the following is quite apt;
ljadw wrote:AFAIK :P :lol:
Errors of fact by Fay? Well from memory on just one issue, he identifies the wrong Ciganovic as being behind the assassination and states the information as coming from official Austrian sources rather than Hungarian newspapers. Fay said Albertini's work was more complete and had supplanted his own, and that he was unable to update his work further due to failing eyesight, so by that recommendation you probably should look in Albertini rather more. Note that it is not often that people cite Albertini's actual opinions, but do cite his work for the quotations and documents included in it. I only cite Albertini's opinions where they coincide with my own or are so close as to make excising them pointless when I am quoting a lengthy passage from the work. Fay might well be handy for some details, but if only because of the age of the work it needs to be checked against more modern works to see if anything else has come to light since.

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#17

Post by CJK1990 » 28 Jun 2014, 21:57

Can someone please explain why the Russian mobilization really matters? Austria had already declared war on Serbia. That was certainly grounds for Russia to go to war, in the same way that the British and French went to war when Germany invaded Poland. Few people argue that the Britain and France are to blame for declaring war to protect Poland, so why is Russia to blame for going to war to protect Serbia?


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#18

Post by ljadw » 28 Jun 2014, 22:27

It did not matter at all : AH never said that it was threatened by the Russian mobilisation.Germany also was not threatened by the Russian mobilisation . Mobilisation is not a reason for declaring war .

Besides : Russia was NOT going to war :as long as AH was NOT invading Serbia, Russia would not go to war,and,on 1 august: nothing irrevocable had happened,only some sham fight .

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

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#19

Post by Terry Duncan » 28 Jun 2014, 22:31

CJK1990 wrote:Can someone please explain why the Russian mobilization really matters?
It depends how honest you want to be and if you wish to take an objective or selective view of events. Russian mobilisation matters because Russia decided on this response before Austria acted, and whilst it was a quite predictable response it does represent a military element from the outset. Did it matter overall? Certainly not to the degree some would like to pretend, as Austria was determined to have her war and by this point (24th/25th July) it was far too late to stop her getting it. As it eventually took place, Russian mobilisation matter very little except as an excuse for others to blame their own decisions on it, even though they had taken them before knowing Russia had certainly opted for full mobilisation. It was a serious heightening of the crisis, but it was still short of war.
CJK1990 wrote:Austria had already declared war on Serbia.
Quite right, the war started on 28th July. This act set the others in motion, all that remained to be decided was the precise timing.
CJK1990 wrote:That was certainly grounds for Russia to go to war, in the same way that the British and French went to war when Germany invaded Poland.
Russia and Serbia did not have a treaty of alliance, Poland did with both Britain and France. Treaties mean what people want them to mean. You will often see the same people who whine endlessly about Russia and Serbia not having a treaty and that it was therefore most unreasonable for Russia to be involved, also complain that Britain did not have to get involved over Belgium whilst handily forgetting Germany also had a treaty agreement with Belgium. Russia went to war over the direct challenge and attack on her interests in the Balkans far more than for the love of Serbia itself. No great power had openly fought the client state of another great power inside Europe since Napoleon, and as soon as this started all the old scores were liable to be called to the fore.
CJK1990 wrote:Few people argue that the Britain and France are to blame for declaring war to protect Poland, so why is Russia to blame for going to war to protect Serbia?
Sadly some do blame Britain and France, mostly out of political ideologies rather than any grounding in real world interactions. Russia is blamed because she did not HAVE to go to war but opted to risk war by standing up to the Austro-German demand that everyone else look the other way as Austria did as she liked with Serbia. It tends to overlook that Germany did not have to offer support to Austria over this matter, and was thus the first outside power to play a role in the crisis, albeit hidden at the time even if guessed at. Austria also did not HAVE to react with war, Berchtold always insisted the Note was simply a demarche with a time limit and not an ultimatum even after Austria broke off relations with Serbia, war was chosen to settle internal as well as external problems for the Monarchy.

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#20

Post by CJK1990 » 28 Jun 2014, 23:11

Terry Duncan wrote:
It depends how honest you want to be and if you wish to take an objective or selective view of events. Russian mobilisation matters because Russia decided on this response before Austria acted,
I'm not sure what this means.
Russia and Serbia did not have a treaty of alliance, Poland did with both Britain and France. Treaties mean what people want them to mean. You will often see the same people who whine endlessly about Russia and Serbia not having a treaty and that it was therefore most unreasonable for Russia to be involved, also complain that Britain did not have to get involved over Belgium whilst handily forgetting Germany also had a treaty agreement with Belgium.
The British didn't make a treaty with Poland until the week before the invasion. In both cases there was already an implied commitment.
Sadly some do blame Britain and France, mostly out of political ideologies rather than any grounding in real world interactions. Russia is blamed because she did not HAVE to go to war but opted to risk war by standing up to the Austro-German demand that everyone else look the other way as Austria did as she liked with Serbia.
In the same way, Britain and France did not have to go to war over Poland. They could have just as easily let Germany do what it wanted in Eastern Europe. Arguably Russia had a vastly greater interest in the Balkans than Britain did over Eastern Europe.

I'm just mystified why mainstream historiography finds the attack on Poland alone as suitable grounds for World War but not the attack on Serbia.

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

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#21

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Jun 2014, 01:18

CJK1990 wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
It depends how honest you want to be and if you wish to take an objective or selective view of events. Russian mobilisation matters because Russia decided on this response before Austria acted,
I'm not sure what this means.
Some people are determined to blame Russia and therefore point to the fact Russia decided that a military response was needed as proof that Russia wanted war. I do not agree with this, but some people do, as I said, it all depends if you wish to slant your views so you reach a desired outcome rather than an objective view.
CJK1990 wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote: Russia and Serbia did not have a treaty of alliance, Poland did with both Britain and France. Treaties mean what people want them to mean. You will often see the same people who whine endlessly about Russia and Serbia not having a treaty and that it was therefore most unreasonable for Russia to be involved, also complain that Britain did not have to get involved over Belgium whilst handily forgetting Germany also had a treaty agreement with Belgium.
The British didn't make a treaty with Poland until the week before the invasion. In both cases there was already an implied commitment.
Again, I agree with you, but people who do not agree will point out the lack of a treaty as somehow significant.
CJK1990 wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote: Sadly some do blame Britain and France, mostly out of political ideologies rather than any grounding in real world interactions. Russia is blamed because she did not HAVE to go to war but opted to risk war by standing up to the Austro-German demand that everyone else look the other way as Austria did as she liked with Serbia.
In the same way, Britain and France did not have to go to war over Poland. They could have just as easily let Germany do what it wanted in Eastern Europe. Arguably Russia had a vastly greater interest in the Balkans than Britain did over Eastern Europe.

I'm just mystified why mainstream historiography finds the attack on Poland alone as suitable grounds for World War but not the attack on Serbia.
A lot of this has to do with western history being coloured by the rise of the USSR post-WWI along with the opposition from the western capitalist powers, and the desire to clear Germany by others. Post-WWII and the desire to paint all things Soviet/Russian in a poor light has led many people to suspect the worst from the Cold War enemies whilst overlooking the faults of Cold War allies. We have two posters here that always put the worst possible interpretation on actions by Russia and even Britain and France, whilst seeking to find any possible excuse for Austro-German actions. None of the great powers were beyond reproach in their actions, people just cast one or the other in a poor light because it suits their ideals to do so.

For WWII it is all too easy to point to the Nazi regime and define it as evil and needing to be opposed, but with WWI it is much harder to identify any power In such a way, even Prussian militarism had its equals in many respects. Austria is mostly viewed as some form of golden lost empire state that was harmless, people forget how its subjects were treated and what rights they had or what input into their government they had, and as the state had ceased to exist even before WWI ended, people tend to gloss over its deeds. Niall Ferguson for one almost ignores Austria in The Pity of War when examining how the war started, a position I find to be almost untenable, but one all to many adopt still. Austria is forgotten because it is easy to blame Germany given events in WWII, and then Russia/USSR in the Cold War. It is certainly a complex issue and hard enough to explain, being all too often down to the individual and their own prejudices.


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

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#23

Post by AJFFM » 31 Jul 2014, 20:23

CJK1990 wrote:Can someone please explain why the Russian mobilization really matters? Austria had already declared war on Serbia. That was certainly grounds for Russia to go to war, in the same way that the British and French went to war when Germany invaded Poland. Few people argue that the Britain and France are to blame for declaring war to protect Poland, so why is Russia to blame for going to war to protect Serbia?
No it wasn't. There was no binding treaty, no common border, the Serbian government was the aggressor and the Austrians gave them ample time and generous conditions in a ultimatum which they didn't have to give in the first place.

1939 was totally different. There was a treaty and Germany broke it and there was an alliance which as activated by the war and which France failed to honour it when it could have and would have probably saved 10s of millions of lives.

All other things other than that are pure details.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#24

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2014, 21:29

Nice (sarcasm)

1) Serbia was not the agressor : AH never said that Serbia was the agressor: the Austrian Emperor said that it was impossible to prove the responsability of Serbia.

2)Russia was not going to war : Germany declared war;

3) In 1939, France kept her promises :it had promised an offensive 15 days after the start of the war,and,there was such an offensive : the Saar offensive .

4) i have read a lot of strange things, but the claim that France was responsible for the millions of victims in WWII,defies all imagination .

5) May I also observe that Ferguson (not a Germanophobe) is mentioning in the foreword of a Pity of War that Bethmann :wink: said : Germany has a big part of the responsability .

The source of Ferguson is "Enigmatic Chancellor" P149 (by Jarausch) and is mentionned in note 99 of A Pity of War .

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

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#25

Post by AJFFM » 31 Jul 2014, 22:01

ljadw wrote:Nice (sarcasm)

1) Serbia was not the agressor : AH never said that Serbia was the agressor: the Austrian Emperor said that it was impossible to prove the responsability of Serbia.
Since I gave my case in the other thread about WWI the only thing I would say is "If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck it's freaking Duck!".
ljadw wrote: 2)Russia was not going to war : Germany declared war;
Again see my earlier responses in the other thread.
ljadw wrote: 3) In 1939, France kept her promises :it had promised an offensive 15 days after the start of the war,and,there was such an offensive : the Saar offensive .
Which they stopped hours after starting despite having crushing superiority in basically everything and having full knowledge of how weak the German forces in the entire border region all the way to the Ruhr. If that is honouring a treaty what betrayal looks like?
ljadw wrote: 4) i have read a lot of strange things, but the claim that France was responsible for the millions of victims in WWII,defies all imagination .
In the great documentary "The World At War" Westphal was frank about how France with its 3 million soldiers could have taken Germany alone right then. Uncle Joe wouldn't mind nor would he have intervened. So yes, France bears some responsibility in the deaths of 10s of millions of people though the Germans still have the majority of the blame.
ljadw wrote: 5) May I also observe that Ferguson (not a Germanophobe) is mentioning in the foreword of a Pity of War that Bethmann :wink: said : Germany has a big part of the responsability .

The source of Ferguson is "Enigmatic Chancellor" P149 (by Jarausch) and is mentionned in note 99 of A Pity of War .
If by Ferguson you mean Niall then you just destroyed your argument. That man's credibility is as good as Good old David Irving's.

Plus if you ever even bothered reading my detailed responses here and the other thread you will never see me deny any German responsibility for the war.
Last edited by AJFFM on 31 Jul 2014, 22:11, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#26

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2014, 22:10

) Franz Jozef is disagreeing with you .


3) The Saar offensive was not stopped after a few hours,and,there was a German superiority at the Saar .This has been discussed at this forum .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Lord Grey and the Lokalanzeiger gambit.

#27

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2014, 22:24

AJFFM wrote:


If by Ferguson you mean Niall then you just destroyed your argument. That man's credibility is as good as Good old David Irving's.

.
You don't get it : it is not about Ferguson : Ferguson is quoting Konrad Janausch,who is an American historian .

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”