Did WW1 really have a reason?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#46

Post by glenn239 » 23 Feb 2021, 19:37

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 14:27
Non-intervention majority was win cabinet on 2.august 1914.year.
The purpose of cabinet was as a sort of corporate executive board, a team of exceptional members of a party all functioning to serve the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister held his position as a mandate from Parliament, not from Cabinet. His job was to execute policy in the name of the king.

Traditionally cabinets attempted to implement policies with unity of opinion. Achieving unity was not always easy or possible. On 2 August 1914, there was no unity whatsoever in cabinet. There was a neutralist faction. There was an interventionist faction. So, if one were to suggest that cabinet were set on a non-interventionist policy, that is factually incorrect. There were a number of members that would have resigned rather than accept neutrality. The British had not chosen a policy on 2 August.

The key is the attitude of the Prime Minister. Cabinet existed at his pleasure, not the other way around. It was popularity in Parliament, not cabinet, that makes the PM the PM. When Asquith said that he would resign if the cabinet decided for neutrality, this act would have dissolved the cabinet, but Asquith would still be the PM. Asquith resigns, affirms majority support in the House, then advises the king that he will form a new government with a new cabinet. And guess whose not in that cabinet? Did you guess not one single neutralist? Bing!

Now, if Asquith had said he would not resign if the neutralists carried the day, then that would have been another matter entirely. But that did not happen in this universe.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#47

Post by glenn239 » 23 Feb 2021, 19:53

waldo88 wrote:
22 Feb 2021, 17:49
Two points in elaboration, both from Albertini, I think:

1. By Aug 2 Germany had concluded that it could not persuade Britain to remain neutral so nothing was lost by invading Belgium;

2. The Kaiser did suggest at the last minute that perhaps the army could be sent east against Russia if England and France could be persuaded to remain neutral but was told there was no mobilization plan for that eventually and so the matter was dropped.
Point. no. 2 is not quite accurate. What occurred was that the German ambassador in London had sent preliminary word that a British neutrality offer was pending. Berlin was led to believe by its ambassador that Germany would have its choice between either British neutrality alone, or Anglo-French neutrality. This, all before the British had offered anything. The Kaiser and Chancellor decided that they preferred Anglo-French neutrality, not just British neutrality, and the Kaiser asked Moltke to halt the mobilization. This Moltke refused to do. Things became quite heated, and Moltke was ejected from the meeting by the Kaiser, who took over direct command of the army. Moltke returned to his house quite distraught and the Germans sent a neutrality offer encompassing Belgium and France to their ambassador to give to the British. The German ambassador then sent message that no British offer was pending, and so he had not acted on his instructions. The Kaiser then summoned Moltke to return to him, and ordered him to proceed with the invasion of Belgium and France.

Moltke did say, not that there was 'no mobilization plan', but that sending the 'entire' army to the east would be a logistical disaster. The logistics were good for a mobilization of about 45 divisions to the east. This was not the reason why the whole thing fell apart - that's fake news. The reason it fell apart was that the German ambassador reported the British had no intention of offering any neutrality conditions.


Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#48

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 24 Feb 2021, 15:00

glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 14:27
Non-intervention majority was win cabinet on 2.august 1914.year.
The purpose of cabinet was as a sort of corporate executive board, a team of exceptional members of a party all functioning to serve the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister held his position as a mandate from Parliament, not from Cabinet. His job was to execute policy in the name of the king.

Traditionally cabinets attempted to implement policies with unity of opinion. Achieving unity was not always easy or possible. On 2 August 1914, there was no unity whatsoever in cabinet. There was a neutralist faction. There was an interventionist faction. So, if one were to suggest that cabinet were set on a non-interventionist policy, that is factually incorrect. There were a number of members that would have resigned rather than accept neutrality. The British had not chosen a policy on 2 August.

The key is the attitude of the Prime Minister. Cabinet existed at his pleasure, not the other way around. It was popularity in Parliament, not cabinet, that makes the PM the PM. When Asquith said that he would resign if the cabinet decided for neutrality, this act would have dissolved the cabinet, but Asquith would still be the PM. Asquith resigns, affirms majority support in the House, then advises the king that he will form a new government with a new cabinet. And guess whose not in that cabinet? Did you guess not one single neutralist? Bing!

Now, if Asquith had said he would not resign if the neutralists carried the day, then that would have been another matter entirely. But that did not happen in this universe.
One more time you was write tosh and imagination story.

You was write complete tosh about how was make british pm.

There was not be "neutralist faction" on cabinet. It is glen imagination story.

Not one man on cabinet was be "neutralist". It is glen imagination story.

Not one man on cabinet was propose on britian for to be neutral. Not one.

It seems to me glen was not be happy on british cabinet was not agree on germany attack france and belgium and so he must to make imagination story for to blame war on british politicians like grey and asquith.

Maybe glan will can to make topic on what if section on forum for to discuss glen imagination storys.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#49

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Feb 2021, 11:00

Actually, Glenn is mostly correct in what he has written here about the British governmental system in 1914. The British PM is not selected by Cabinet, they dont even have to sit in the House of Commons or only be supported by a single party. The last peer to hold office as a member of the House of Lords was the Marquis of Salisbury in 1902, whilst Sir Alec Douglas-Hume resigned his peerage as 14th Earl Home shortly after his predecessor as PM stood down as PM as late as 1963 (only later to re-enter the Lords as Baron Home of Hirsel.

There clearly was a neutralist faction in Cabinet in 1914 as the resignations of John Morley and John Burns shows, they were against war no matter what circumstances. The promised support from Bonar-Law no doubt focused a few minds who didnt wish to be out of government, and Belgium did the rest. Kier Hardy (and irrc Ramsey MacDonald) voted against the government in the deciding debate in the Commons, so there certainly were proponants of neutrality in all parties other than mabe the Conservative and Unionist party.

If Asquith resigned as PM upon losing a Cabinet vote over British intervention, he could then dissolve the government and attempt to form a new one before needing to call a general election, this power always rests with the PM, technically even after his party has lost an election as he can still be PM in a coalition government. This was part of the reason for the long delay in 2010 over who would be PM in an obviously hung parliament.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#50

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 25 Feb 2021, 16:02

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 11:00
Actually, Glenn is mostly correct in what he has written here about the British governmental system in 1914. The British PM is not selected by Cabinet, they dont even have to sit in the House of Commons or only be supported by a single party. The last peer to hold office as a member of the House of Lords was the Marquis of Salisbury in 1902, whilst Sir Alec Douglas-Hume resigned his peerage as 14th Earl Home shortly after his predecessor as PM stood down as PM as late as 1963 (only later to re-enter the Lords as Baron Home of Hirsel.

There clearly was a neutralist faction in Cabinet in 1914 as the resignations of John Morley and John Burns shows, they were against war no matter what circumstances. The promised support from Bonar-Law no doubt focused a few minds who didnt wish to be out of government, and Belgium did the rest. Kier Hardy (and irrc Ramsey MacDonald) voted against the government in the deciding debate in the Commons, so there certainly were proponants of neutrality in all parties other than mabe the Conservative and Unionist party.

If Asquith resigned as PM upon losing a Cabinet vote over British intervention, he could then dissolve the government and attempt to form a new one before needing to call a general election, this power always rests with the PM, technically even after his party has lost an election as he can still be PM in a coalition government. This was part of the reason for the long delay in 2010 over who would be PM in an obviously hung parliament.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 11:00
Actually, Glenn is mostly correct in what he has written here about the British governmental system in 1914.
No. He was be mostly wrong.

He was write
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
The Prime Minister held his position as a mandate from Parliament, not from Cabinet.
Not correct for to write the Prime Minister held his position as a mandate from Parliament, .
Correct for to write not from cabinet.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 11:00
There clearly was a neutralist faction in Cabinet in 1914 as the resignations of John Morley and John Burns shows, they were against war no matter what circumstances
Majority on cabinet was be non-interventionist. Many was be against war no matter what circumstances. Not one man was be "neutralist". Not one man was propose on britain for to declare neutral status.

On context july 1914.year when britain was declare neutral status on topic germany attack france was be same as give permission on advance for germany attack france.

On context july 1914.year when britain was declare neutral status on topic germany attack belgium was be same as give permission on advance for germany attack belgium and was declare on advance britain was not respect 1939 treaty.

Not one man on cabinet was propose for britain to declare neutral status. Majority on cabinet was propose do nothing say nothing not declare no status on nothing to no country.

On many understandings consequence on declare neutral status and do nothing say nothing can to be same. But reason for consequence not be same.

Do nothing say nothing policy is non-interventionist.

Declare neutral status on context july 1914.year is interventionist because say something. Neutral status have consequence do nothing but have big consequence say something.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 11:00
The promised support from Bonar-Law no doubt focused a few minds who didnt wish to be out of government, and Belgium did the rest.
Correct. Also i think news on same day about germany attack luxembourg and germany declare war on russia was be help decisions.
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
There was a neutralist faction.
Not correct
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
There was an interventionist faction.
Correct.
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
So, if one were to suggest that cabinet were set on a non-interventionist policy, that is factually incorrect.
It was be factually correct.

On morning 2.august 1914.year before first meeting majority cabinet was be complete non-interventionist do nothing say nothing.
On afternoon 2.august 1914.year after first meeting majority cabinet was be complete non-interventionist do nothing say nothing.
On evening 2.august 1914.year after second meeting majority cabinet was be non-interventionist but was agree on continue exist policy and exist obligations.
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
There were a number of members that would have resigned rather than accept neutrality.
This must to be glen imagination story because not one man on cabinet was propose declare neutrality status.
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:37
The British had not chosen a policy on 2 August.
Cabinet was not choose new policy. Cabinet was agree for to continue on exist policy and exist agreements and exist obligations.

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 11:00
If Asquith resigned as PM upon losing a Cabinet vote over British intervention, he could then dissolve the government and attempt to form a new one before needing to call a general election, this power always rests with the PM, technically even after his party has lost an election as he can still be PM in a coalition government. This was part of the reason for the long delay in 2010 over who would be PM in an obviously hung parliament.
Correct. There was be many different possibilitys. It was not simple like what was write glen. Glen was want peoples to think it was simple for to make glen imagination story.

Was threat asquith on resign on position leader liberal party ?
Was threat asquith on resign on position pm ?
Was threat asquith on dissolve the government ?
Was threat asquith on dissolve cabinet ?
Was threat asquith on call new election ?

Every one was be different. Every one was have different implications and consequences. Who was choose new leader liberal party ? Who was choose new pm ? Who was choose new government ? Who was choose new cabinet ? Who was choose new parliament on new election ?

On glen imagination story he want people for to believe britain cabinet was choose war. He want people for to believe grey and asquith and churchill was be guilty on start so much blood on ww1. He was make imagination story on grey and asquith was stop imagination neutralists from give permission on germany for to have quick war and quick victory on france and on russia and austria on serbia.

On real history cabinet was not agree on choose war. Cabinet was agree on two things on 2.august 1914.year. 1.britain was continue on respect obligations on anglo-french naval agreement on 1912.year. 2.britain was continue on respect obligations on 1839.year treaty. At end of day cabinet was agree on not change exist policy.

Germany was choose war not britain.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#51

Post by glenn239 » 25 Feb 2021, 19:41

Terry Duncan wrote:
19 Feb 2021, 15:38
By involving France, by definition this is beyond a British participation in a war between Germany and Russia. Unless France is involved my point of no method for direct British involvement stands.
Britain was not going to war for Russia if France did not.
Britain was going to war for Russia if France did so.
Ferguson successfully argued what?
That compared to the folly of the actual British decision to fight a useless war in Flanders, that the act of remaining neutral on the terms set out by Bethmann in July 1914 would have been an act of strategic genius worthy of the love child of Bismarck and Metternich.
The nation causing the end of Splendid Isolation was mostly Germany when it supported the Boers, armed them, and led continental opposition to the war. It made Britain aware it needed allies, not isolation.
Britain required allies as a lesson from the Boer War, in which it required no allies and fought no other power? Seems quite the stretch.
Potential. Sadly for reality, in 1914 this played no part in why either nation went to war. They had far more direct reasons relating to actual events taking place at the time.
Russia went to war as a choice between smashing Austria-Hungary to pieces once and for all, versus accepting a 3rd Balkans War. Britain went to war because France and Russia did so. If that constitutes "more direct reasons", then one wonders if the Entente required any 'reasons' at all!
If Austria had not insisted on war. Why does Austria have to be allowed to go to war?
Britain had no interest in a Austro-Russian war and should have backed the lesser danger, which was another localized Balkans War.
The balance between France and Russia verses Germany and Austria-Hungary was very close in 1905-1907, with the former likely being weaker due to the Russo-Japanese war and revolution of 1905. That is the point the alliances were set. By 1914 the balance was far closer. The deciding factor for Britain was that Germany had openly declared itself a threat with its naval program. There are a good three hundred years of British history of opposing the nearest naval rival, and Germany openly embraced that role, the result was inevitable.
The Anglo-Russian Entente was the decisive factor that led directly to the war. This led to an Anglo-French backing of Russian adventurism in the Balkans that Germany was too weak to ward off diplomatically without British cooperation. Whether Grey understood he was doing this or not at the time is irrelevant. By 1912 at the latest he must have known that in the Entente with Russia, (as opposed to an Entente with Austria), Britain had unwisely hooked its cart to a Russian tiger that would soon pull Europe off the cliff.
That is quite some reaching going on there. Even by 1916 the overthrow of the Tzar was not inevitable, if he had taken a different approach to riots or even not assumed control of the army he may well have kept his throne. His death is even more removed from the reality of options in 1914, and but for an outbreak of measles, could have been avoided even after he abdicated.
Tzar Nicholas was a reckless fool to risk his life, his family, and his dynasty in 1914 over such a rediculous luxury as a war for Serbia. The Kaiser would have been happy to place the German army at the security service to assure the Romanovs of rule throughout the 20th Century, if only the Tzar would throw off France as an ally. But you can't fix stupid, it always finds a way to reach disaster.
Given both Wilhelmine Germany and Austria-Hungary cease to exist in 1918, I would suggest they would gain most from no war at all in 1914.
Germany emerged from WW1 as the strongest power in Europe and the destruction of the Austrian Empire simply assured Germany would scoop up the successor states into its orbit.
I cannot recall ever claiming British policy was dependent upon Belgium? British support for Russia alone was negligable in 1914, the overall support was for not having a war at all, but when British interests in western Europe were combined with the potential loss of an ally in eastern Europe as well as an attack on an ally in the west, British involvement becomes reality. Britain may not have directly gone to war over Russia in 1914 but it was always going to directly go to war if Germany attacked in the west.
Britain was going to war if France went to war. Whether Germany attacked east, or west, or north, or not at all, would make no difference.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#52

Post by glenn239 » 25 Feb 2021, 20:11

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 16:02

This must to be glen imagination story because not one man on cabinet was propose declare neutrality status.
"Glenn", not "glen".
Was threat asquith on resign on position leader liberal party ?
Was threat asquith on resign on position pm ?
Was threat asquith on dissolve the government ?
Was threat asquith on dissolve cabinet ?
Was threat asquith on call new election ?
Asquith did not indicate he would resign as "leader liberal party". He said he would resign from cabinet, which meant, that cabinet would cease to exist. Asquith would still be PM, he would not call an election, would simply form another cabinet and move onwards.
On glen imagination story he want people for to believe britain cabinet was choose war. He want people for to believe grey and asquith and churchill was be guilty on start so much blood on ww1. He was make imagination story on grey and asquith was stop imagination neutralists from give permission on germany for to have quick war and quick victory on france and on russia and austria on serbia.
. In order for Germany to adapt a defensive stance in light of the Franco-Russian mobilization, it was critical that the British be able to offer their neutrality towards Germany in some fashion, in some guise, in which the Germans could then alter their own strategy. The cabinet crisis and the determination of the British interventionists to come into the war made it impossible that this could occur.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#53

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 26 Feb 2021, 15:45

glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 20:11
He said he would resign from cabinet,
Your imagination story is very funny.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 20:11
In order for Germany to adapt a defensive stance in light of the Franco-Russian mobilization, it was critical that the British be able to offer their neutrality towards Germany in some fashion, in some guise, in which the Germans could then alter their own strategy.
Hahaha!!!

Britain neutrality was not be critical it was not be relevant. 1839.year treaty was be exist from 1839.year. Nothing was be change. Germany was decide on attack belgium attack luxemburg and on attack france. It was be on schlieffen plan and on moltke plan. Germany was not have defensive strategy for to adapt.

You was write words for to mislead peoples. Germany policy and germany strategy was not be defensive. It was be for to start war on many peoples.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 20:11
The cabinet crisis and the determination of the British interventionists to come into the war made it impossible that this could occur.
Hahaha!!!

Britain was come on war because germany was attack belgium. It was germany war plan for many years.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#54

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Feb 2021, 19:25

glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Britain was not going to war for Russia if France did not.
Britain was going to war for Russia if France did so.
Only because Germany was intending to make those decisions for everyone else by declaring war on them.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
That compared to the folly of the actual British decision to fight a useless war in Flanders, that the act of remaining neutral on the terms set out by Bethmann in July 1914 would have been an act of strategic genius worthy of the love child of Bismarck and Metternich.
This is the same Ferguson, and same book by him, where he argues Germany was not really a Great Power, struggling to maintain the facade, and fighting to retain that status? His hindsight and strange idea that a victorious Germany would never have a desire to challenge a Britain now with no allies remaining, are really astounding.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Britain required allies as a lesson from the Boer War, in which it required no allies and fought no other power? Seems quite the stretch.
There were points where it was though one or more European powers might join the Boers, the power making the most noise probably needs no direct mention!?
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Russia went to war as a choice between smashing Austria-Hungary to pieces once and for all, versus accepting a 3rd Balkans War. Britain went to war because France and Russia did so. If that constitutes "more direct reasons", then one wonders if the Entente required any 'reasons' at all!
Russia 'went to war' because it was attempting to stop Austria attacking Serbia. Russia and Britain were still trying to create an acceptable formula to save the peace at the end of the crisis, unlike Austria and Germany who made no proposals for a peaceful solution and had already long before decided that war was the desirable outcome.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Britain had no interest in a Austro-Russian war and should have backed the lesser danger, which was another localized Balkans War.
Grey said that if Austria could manage to have a war with Serbia where no other power was involved then there was no problem, but if another power did become involved it would end in catastrophe. Austria made no attempt to lay any diplomatic grounds allowing such an outcome. Austria also involved Germany from the first week in July, who's only real attempt for a settlement was to demand Austria be able to do as it liked whilst threatening anyone who may not like such a settlement, other than to lie to everyone about knowing nothing long after it became obvious they were directly involved.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
The Anglo-Russian Entente was the decisive factor that led directly to the war. This led to an Anglo-French backing of Russian adventurism in the Balkans that Germany was too weak to ward off diplomatically without British cooperation. Whether Grey understood he was doing this or not at the time is irrelevant. By 1912 at the latest he must have known that in the Entente with Russia, (as opposed to an Entente with Austria), Britain had unwisely hooked its cart to a Russian tiger that would soon pull Europe off the cliff.
So, why didnt war break out in 1909, 1911, 1913 etc? The 'adventurism' that took Europe to war in 1914 was Austrian and German adventurism, attempting to start a war whilst ignoring other powers interests. Why is it that the only suggestions for a settlement short of war came from the Entente powers or Italy? None came from Austria or Germany.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Tzar Nicholas was a reckless fool to risk his life, his family, and his dynasty in 1914 over such a rediculous luxury as a war for Serbia. The Kaiser would have been happy to place the German army at the security service to assure the Romanovs of rule throughout the 20th Century, if only the Tzar would throw off France as an ally. But you can't fix stupid, it always finds a way to reach disaster.
There was no indication he was going to be killed in 1914, indeed even in 1916 it was not the most likely outcome. The Tzar was indeed an idiot, he should not have taken control of the army and he should have locked his idiot wife in a monastry where she could do no harm in true Tzarist fashion. Hindsight and imagination are poor substitutes for factual knowledge of the time when the decisions were made.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Germany emerged from WW1 as the strongest power in Europe and the destruction of the Austrian Empire simply assured Germany would scoop up the successor states into its orbit.
That is rather laughable. France was clearly the strongest power in Europe after WWI and had the terms of Versailles been enforced Germany, with is 100,000 man army was not going to scoop up anything.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 19:41
Britain was going to war if France went to war. Whether Germany attacked east, or west, or north, or not at all, would make no difference.
Quite possibly not if France had declared war on Germany. There would be debate certainly, and it is possible that Britain would join in, but it is also possible they would not do so in the case of a Franco-Russian attack on Germany as Grey hinted at to Lichnowsky when considering the future 'if the present crisis could be passed'.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#55

Post by glenn239 » 26 Feb 2021, 19:27

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 15:45
Your imagination story is very funny.
No, Grey indicated around 2 August that he would resign from cabinet if a neutralist course was taken, and Asquith said that if Grey went, he would go too. Had Asquith said the opposite, you'd be in a much stronger position.
Britain neutrality was not be critical it was not be relevant. 1839.year treaty was be exist from 1839.year. Nothing was be change. Germany was decide on attack belgium attack luxemburg and on attack france. It was be on schlieffen plan and on moltke plan. Germany was not have defensive strategy for to adapt.
Just as a friendly observation, you should work harder on upper case consistency, "France", and "Schlieffen Plan", etc. When you post so lazily that you say 'moltke' instead of 'Moltke', it causes at least me to assume your attention to detail is also lacking.

In terms of your actual comment, sorry, everything had changed. The 1839 Treaty was no longer central to British policy. The Ententes with France and Russia were. And Franco-Russian military planning did not allow for the prospect of success if Belgium remained neutral.
You was write words for to mislead peoples. Germany policy and germany strategy was not be defensive. It was be for to start war on many peoples.
German diplomatic thinking was along the lines that British intentions were unknown, something to be revealed at the proper time. Almost like a coin flip. Germany military strategy was predicated on a war on two fronts in which Britain would be hostile. According to Zuber, the BEF appears in German military exercises on the left flank of the French deployment in 1908. In German military circles, the idea of the neutrality of Belgium was unlikely; if Germany had stayed on the defensive, the Belgians would have allied with the Entente. In order for German diplomats to swing the Kaiser around, they required the British to offer their neutrality. Only this could give the diplomats the weapon to force the generals to comply. But Britain would not name her terms. Not Belgium, not the Moon. Nothing. The obvious take-away is that the British were not going to remain neutral.
Britain was come on war because germany was attack belgium. It was germany war plan for many years.
No, you are quite wrong. The German attack on Belgium simply resolved the cabinet crisis more quickly. It did not cause cabinet to adapt the opposite to what it otherwise would have done.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#56

Post by Terry Duncan » 27 Feb 2021, 12:34

glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021, 19:53
This Moltke refused to do. Things became quite heated, and Moltke was ejected from the meeting by the Kaiser, who took over direct command of the army. Moltke returned to his house quite distraught and the Germans sent a neutrality offer encompassing Belgium and France to their ambassador to give to the British. The German ambassador then sent message that no British offer was pending, and so he had not acted on his instructions. The Kaiser then summoned Moltke to return to him, and ordered him to proceed with the invasion of Belgium and France.

Moltke did say, not that there was 'no mobilization plan', but that sending the 'entire' army to the east would be a logistical disaster. The logistics were good for a mobilization of about 45 divisions to the east. This was not the reason why the whole thing fell apart - that's fake news. The reason it fell apart was that the German ambassador reported the British had no intention of offering any neutrality conditions.
This is not what happened. The Kaiser asked Moltke to deploy to the East and Moltke told him there was no such plan and it was thus impossible. The Kaiser 'insisted' as whick point Moltke made his famous remark about being asked to deploy a disorganised mass of men with no organisation. A compromise was arrived at where mobilisation would continue as ordered, where men went to their mobilisation depots in the west from where they were expected to deploy at these location, but would instead then be moved from the mobilisation depots in the west to locations for deployment in the east. This made sense as the formations would collect all their men in one place even if it were not optimum, and then the entire formation would be moved from there to where they would be expected to fight in a war in the east. The alternative, as intitially desired by the Kaiser would have seen formations sent east whilst men who had already set out for the depots in the west were still travelling and not in a position to be ordered to where their parent formation was headed as the initial mobilisation ordered troops to certain depots, but they made their own way there, so it would be impossible to round up all the men on the move and head them in a new direction. Moltke was indeed distraught over having to wage war only in the east, and did return home, but he was not 'ejected' and the Kaiser did not take over command of the army and more than he was already technically in command. The army was still deploying to Moltke's original plan, and Moltke clearly hoped that once mobilised he would still be able to wage war in the west as planned.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#57

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 27 Feb 2021, 16:42

glenn239 wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:27
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 15:45
Your imagination story is very funny.
No, Grey indicated around 2 August that he would resign from cabinet if a neutralist course was taken, and Asquith said that if Grey went, he would go too. Had Asquith said the opposite, you'd be in a much stronger position.
Yes it is very funny.

You was write
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021, 20:11
Asquith ... said he would resign from cabinet, which meant, that cabinet would cease to exist. Asquith would still be PM, he would not call an election, would simply form another cabinet and move onwards.
Asquith was not say he would resign from cabinet. It was not be possible pm for to resign from cabinet. It is glen imagination story for to make glen imagination theory.

Asquith was can resign on party leader. Asquith was can resign on position pm. Asquith was can resign government. Each option was have different processes and consequences. For to understand real history correct must to understand what type of resign was say asquith.

But you was not interest on understand real history you was invent asquith resign on cabinet for to make glen imagination story.
glenn239 wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:27
In terms of your actual comment, sorry, everything had changed. The 1839 Treaty was no longer central to British policy.
On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which 17 mens on cabinet was agree on evening 2.august 1914.year.

On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which british parliament and british public was undersrtand was must be on war.

On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which was basis on warning what was sent to Berlin.

On real history when germany was attack belgium it was be 1839.year treaty what was reason on britain join war.

On glen imagination story The 1839 Treaty was no longer central to British policy.

Hahaha!!!
glenn239 wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:27
The Ententes with France and Russia were. And Franco-Russian military planning did not allow for the prospect of success if Belgium remained neutral.
I was read much times on other topics on forum you was write same tosh again and again.
glenn239 wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:27
The obvious take-away is that the British were not going to remain neutral.
Hahaha!

Again glen was write imagination story for to make glen imagination story.
glenn239 wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:27
Britain was come on war because germany was attack belgium. It was germany war plan for many years.
No, you are quite wrong. The German attack on Belgium simply resolved the cabinet crisis more quickly. It did not cause cabinet to adapt the opposite to what it otherwise would have done.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!

Mostest funny tosh of all funny toshs.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#58

Post by glenn239 » 01 Mar 2021, 19:13

Terry Duncan wrote:
27 Feb 2021, 12:34
This is not what happened. The Kaiser asked Moltke to deploy to the East and Moltke told him there was no such plan and it was thus impossible. The Kaiser 'insisted' as whick point Moltke made his famous remark about being asked to deploy a disorganised mass of men with no organisation. A compromise was arrived at where mobilisation would continue as ordered, where men went to their mobilisation depots in the west from where they were expected to deploy at these location, but would instead then be moved from the mobilisation depots in the west to locations for deployment in the east. This made sense as the formations would collect all their men in one place even if it were not optimum, and then the entire formation would be moved from there to where they would be expected to fight in a war in the east. The alternative, as intitially desired by the Kaiser would have seen formations sent east whilst men who had already set out for the depots in the west were still travelling and not in a position to be ordered to where their parent formation was headed as the initial mobilisation ordered troops to certain depots, but they made their own way there, so it would be impossible to round up all the men on the move and head them in a new direction. Moltke was indeed distraught over having to wage war only in the east, and did return home, but he was not 'ejected' and the Kaiser did not take over command of the army and more than he was already technically in command. The army was still deploying to Moltke's original plan, and Moltke clearly hoped that once mobilised he would still be able to wage war in the west as planned.
The Kaiser ordered Moltke to leave the meeting after the blow up on Luxembourg in which the Kaiser ordered the halt to the invasion of Luxembourg directly over Moltke's head. A firm British neutrality offer was considered so powerful by the majority in the meeting that Germany could not refuse to accept it. Moltke thought differently, meaning, that if the British had come forward with a proposal along the lines which the Germans believed was pending from Lichnowsky's telegrams, Moltke would have been sacked from command sometime around 2 August 1914, and presumably Falkenhayn takes over.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#59

Post by glenn239 » 01 Mar 2021, 19:47

"Ружичасти Слон"
Asquith was not say he would resign from cabinet. It was not be possible pm for to resign from cabinet. It is glen imagination story for to make glen imagination theory.
"Glenn" not 'glen'.
Asquith was can resign on party leader. Asquith was can resign on position pm. Asquith was can resign government. Each option was have different processes and consequences. For to understand real history correct must to understand what type of resign was say asquith.
Asquith did not say he would resign as PM or resign as party leader. He said if Grey left the cabinet, that he would too. Cabinet would not longer exist at that point, but Asquith would still be the PM.
On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which 17 mens on cabinet was agree on evening 2.august 1914.year.
The cabinet had already decided that legal obligations towards Belgium would not take precedence over matters of British policy.
On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which was basis on warning what was sent to Berlin.
The ultimatum was sent after the Germans had invaded Belgium, yes.
On real history when germany was attack belgium it was be 1839.year treaty what was reason on britain join war.
No, the Entente policy had already picked the side Britain would join. Had France, for example, violated the neutrality of Belgium, the British would not have declared war on France. The 1839 Treaty stipulated that Britain and Russia would go to war with France if France invaded Belgium. This was something neither Britain nor Russia was prepared to do in 1914.
I was read much times on other topics on forum you was write same...
Correct.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#60

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 02 Mar 2021, 17:08

glenn239 wrote:
01 Mar 2021, 19:47
"Ружичасти Слон" Asquith was can resign on party leader. Asquith was can resign on position pm. Asquith was can resign government. Each option was have different processes and consequences. For to understand real history correct must to understand what type of resign was say asquith.
Asquith did not say he would resign as PM or resign as party leader. He said if Grey left the cabinet, that he would too. Cabinet would not longer exist at that point, but Asquith would still be the PM.
Maybe that was can to happen on your imagination story. But was not be possible on real history.

When you want your imagination story for to be plausible you must to explain how was function your imagination britain government on your imagination story.

On real history when cabinet minister was offer resign he was not resign on cabinet he was resign on position minister. When grey was propose resign he was say he must to stop be foreign minister. When was not minister he was can not be on cabinet. That was what happen on burns and morley. On imagination story asquith "follow" grey then that was mean he must to resign on pm. But it seems to me it was not be clear on asquith words what resign he was think. But for sure it was not resign only on cabinet because that possible only exist on glen imagination story.
glenn239 wrote:
01 Mar 2021, 19:47
On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which 17 mens on cabinet was agree on evening 2.august 1914.year.
The cabinet had already decided that legal obligations towards Belgium would not take precedence over matters of British policy.
On evening on 2.august 1914.year 17 mens on britain cabinet was agree on respect 1839.year treaty was be britain policy on context germany decision for to attack belgium.

Only on glen imagination story was not be policy.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”