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: 5145
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by glenn239 » 23 Feb 2021 18:37

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
23 Feb 2021 13:27
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: 5145
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by glenn239 » 23 Feb 2021 18:53

waldo88 wrote:
22 Feb 2021 16:49
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: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 24 Feb 2021 14:00

glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021 18:37
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
23 Feb 2021 13:27
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: 5903
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Feb 2021 10:00

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: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 25 Feb 2021 15:02

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Feb 2021 10:00
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 10:00
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 18:37
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 10:00
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 10:00
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 18:37
There was a neutralist faction.
Not correct
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021 18:37
There was an interventionist faction.
Correct.
glenn239 wrote:
23 Feb 2021 18:37
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 18:37
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 18:37
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 10:00
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: 5145
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by glenn239 » 25 Feb 2021 18:41

Terry Duncan wrote:
19 Feb 2021 14:38
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: 5145
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by glenn239 » 25 Feb 2021 19:11

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
25 Feb 2021 15:02

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: 316
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 26 Feb 2021 14:45

glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021 19:11
He said he would resign from cabinet,
Your imagination story is very funny.
glenn239 wrote:
25 Feb 2021 19:11
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 19:11
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.

Return to “First World War”