Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of World War I?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
It depended on whom you asked, of course, but for the most part not. I don't have the exact quotation conveniently to hand but in essence Bismarck had said that with the obvious exception of some of the Habsburg lands, none of the adjoining regions had populations that could readily be absorbed into German society. That is, they would weaken the Reich more than they would strengthen it. In particular, he believed, Germany already had too many Poles. His views continued to be quoted until after 1914.
It's interesting to speculate what Bismarck would have done if he could have been brought back in the conditions of the war. Probably have tried to get rid of Wilhelm II for starters.
It's interesting to speculate what Bismarck would have done if he could have been brought back in the conditions of the war. Probably have tried to get rid of Wilhelm II for starters.
William D. O'Neil
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
What about Latvia and Estonia, though? After all, both Latvia and Estonia were largely Protestant, still used the Fraktur script, and were ruled by Baltic German nobles.woneil wrote:It depended on whom you asked, of course, but for the most part not. I don't have the exact quotation conveniently to hand but in essence Bismarck had said that with the obvious exception of some of the Habsburg lands, none of the adjoining regions had populations that could readily be absorbed into German society. That is, they would weaken the Reich more than they would strengthen it. In particular, he believed, Germany already had too many Poles.
Plus, both Latvia and Estonia were sparely populated and thus would have probably made great Lebensraum (living space) for Imperial Germany. In addition to this, both Latvia and Estonia were previously ruled by the ethnically German Teutonic Knights and thus Imperial Germany could argue that it has a legitimate claim to both Latvia and Estonia:
Source(s), please?His views continued to be quoted until after 1914.
How exactly would Bismarck have gotten rid of Kaiser Wilhelm II, though?It's interesting to speculate what Bismarck would have done if he could have been brought back in the conditions of the war. Probably have tried to get rid of Wilhelm II for starters.
Indeed, weren't both Moltke and Bethamnn-Hollweg the ones in Germany who were genuinely pushing for war during the July Crisis of 1914?
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Also, wouldn't creating German puppet states in both Poland and Lithuania have made Germany's border with Russia much more secure? After all, Germany's 1914 borders theoretically allowed Russia to implement a pincer movement from Poland to Danzig and thus to cut off all of the German forces in East Prussia.
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Any such ambitions would have required defeating and subjecting Russia as a prerequisite. They would have compromised Russia's strategic position and maritime access, and thus her viability as a great power, and for this reason could not be achieved short of a comprehensive victory that the Großergeneralstab were far from being prepared to promise.
As I say, there were voices in Germany that called for such radical aims, just as there were in other states. But they had no discernible traction in high places, save in the occasional rantings of Wilhelm II.
As I say, there were voices in Germany that called for such radical aims, just as there were in other states. But they had no discernible traction in high places, save in the occasional rantings of Wilhelm II.
William D. O'Neil
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Compromised Russia's strategic position in exactly what sense, though? In making the Russian capital of Petrograd too close to German-controlled areas?woneil wrote:Any such ambitions would have required defeating and subjecting Russia as a prerequisite. They would have compromised Russia's strategic position
Russia still has an outlet to the Baltic Sea even without control of the Baltic states and Finland, though.and maritime access,
In exactly what sense, though? Indeed, is present-day Russia (in real life) not a Great Power?and thus her viability as a great power,
Yes; correct! However, couldn't Germany have significantly increased the odds of doing this by significantly improving relations with France (such as by holding a binding sovereignty plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine) beforehand? After all, would France have actually been willing to risk bleeding itself dry in a war with Germany if France would have already controlled most or all of Alsace-Lorraine?and for this reason could not be achieved short of a comprehensive victory that the Großergeneralstab were far from being prepared to promise.
OK. Also, though, when exactly did Kaiser Wilhelm II actually support doing this before the start of World War I?As I say, there were voices in Germany that called for such radical aims, just as there were in other states. But they had no discernible traction in high places, save in the occasional rantings of Wilhelm II.
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Bismarck was often quoted by German ministry and military staff when considering how future events would play out if Austria-hungary fell apart, or when considering how desirable it was to incorporate different peoples into the German Confederation, as it was felt important to not include too many Catholics etc (Bismarck was against including Austria in the new confederation in 1866 because it would mean lessening the Protestant majority). I am not sure where you would find specific quotes being used after Bismarck was removed, maybe something covering Holstein or the Wilhelmine era would be best, or for the exclusion of Austria in 1866, works covering Bismarck's thinking at the time.Futurist wrote:Source(s), please?woneil wrote:His views continued to be quoted until after 1914.
Getting rid of Wilhelm was something talked about in some circles prior to WWI, notably the military, as there was dissatisfaction at how he always backed away from the threat of war. There was some degree of open advocation of replacing Wilhelm with the Crown Prince who was far more outspoken and warlike, indeed he was the initial target of anti-German propaganda when the war did start as he was felt to be one of the key 'war party' members that pushed Germany to war. How it could be done is simple, you only need to convince Wilhelm the army will not support him, and that the government also has no faith in him anymore, his mood was known to swing wildly, and then pressure him into abdicating when he was suffering one of his low points, such as his breakdown (in 1909 after the Daily Telegraph Interview fiasco iirc). He could of course have also suffered a fate similar to Bavaria's mad king Ludwig only a few decades before, accidents do happen after all, and fjords have very cold water should anyone fall in unexpectedly late one night.Futurist wrote:How exactly would Bismarck have gotten rid of Kaiser Wilhelm II, though?woneil wrote:It's interesting to speculate what Bismarck would have done if he could have been brought back in the conditions of the war. Probably have tried to get rid of Wilhelm II for starters.
Indeed, weren't both Moltke and Bethamnn-Hollweg the ones in Germany who were genuinely pushing for war during the July Crisis of 1914?
Moltke and Bethmann were following different lines in the July Crisis. Bethmann was pushing for some sort of limited war that would allow Germany to solve her problem with Austria and Russia, either by allowing Austria to crush Serbia and destroy Russian influence in the Balkans, or even to contemplate a war with Russia over the issue, as he felt sure Britain and France would not support war over Serbia, and even if France was forced into war, Britain would remain neutral. Molke followed a far more realistic line, as his memo on what would happen following an Austrian declaration of war on Serbia showed. His position was that the time war right for war, and the chances in the future would be less favourable to Germany, hence his 'better sooner than later' comments from 1912 onwards. Bethmann's policy was foolish brinkmanship, Moltke's just exploited the situation Bethmann's gambling had led to.
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
As to territorial ambitions, I did overlook one rather significant episode that laid out some objectives just before the war started. Are you aware of Bethmann's attempt to buy British neutrality in late July?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
- Location: Ottawa
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
I've just finished reading MacMillan's The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. It certainly identifies and discusses German's territorial ambitions outside Europe but there is nothing about it having any such ambitions in Europe. If it did have any they must not have amounted to much and/or the Germans kept them to themselves.
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Yes, I think so. Indeed, you are talking about Bethmann's promise to avoid annexing any French territory after a German victory in World War I in exchange for British neutrality in World War I, correct?Terry Duncan wrote:As to territorial ambitions, I did overlook one rather significant episode that laid out some objectives just before the war started. Are you aware of Bethmann's attempt to buy British neutrality in late July?
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
OK. Also, though, since Bismarck was opposed to incorporating a lot of Catholics into the new German Reich, why exactly did he support incorporating Catholic-majority Bavaria into the new German Reich?Terry Duncan wrote:Bismarck was often quoted by German ministry and military staff when considering how future events would play out if Austria-hungary fell apart, or when considering how desirable it was to incorporate different peoples into the German Confederation, as it was felt important to not include too many Catholics etc (Bismarck was against including Austria in the new confederation in 1866 because it would mean lessening the Protestant majority). I am not sure where you would find specific quotes being used after Bismarck was removed, maybe something covering Holstein or the Wilhelmine era would be best, or for the exclusion of Austria in 1866, works covering Bismarck's thinking at the time.Futurist wrote:Source(s), please?woneil wrote:His views continued to be quoted until after 1914.
OK. Frankly, that certainly makes sense!Getting rid of Wilhelm was something talked about in some circles prior to WWI, notably the military, as there was dissatisfaction at how he always backed away from the threat of war. There was some degree of open advocation of replacing Wilhelm with the Crown Prince who was far more outspoken and warlike, indeed he was the initial target of anti-German propaganda when the war did start as he was felt to be one of the key 'war party' members that pushed Germany to war. How it could be done is simple, you only need to convince Wilhelm the army will not support him, and that the government also has no faith in him anymore, his mood was known to swing wildly, and then pressure him into abdicating when he was suffering one of his low points, such as his breakdown (in 1909 after the Daily Telegraph Interview fiasco iirc). He could of course have also suffered a fate similar to Bavaria's mad king Ludwig only a few decades before, accidents do happen after all, and fjords have very cold water should anyone fall in unexpectedly late one night.Futurist wrote:How exactly would Bismarck have gotten rid of Kaiser Wilhelm II, though?woneil wrote:It's interesting to speculate what Bismarck would have done if he could have been brought back in the conditions of the war. Probably have tried to get rid of Wilhelm II for starters.
Indeed, weren't both Moltke and Bethamnn-Hollweg the ones in Germany who were genuinely pushing for war during the July Crisis of 1914?
Yes, this appears to be mostly correct! However, my impression is that Bethmann wanted a general European war to break out in 1914 if Britain would remain neutral. After all, I certainly know that Bethmann was strongly concerned about Russia's growing power and influence in 1914. (Indeed, I can provide a couple of quotes in regards to this for you if you are interested, Terry. )Moltke and Bethmann were following different lines in the July Crisis. Bethmann was pushing for some sort of limited war that would allow Germany to solve her problem with Austria and Russia, either by allowing Austria to crush Serbia and destroy Russian influence in the Balkans, or even to contemplate a war with Russia over the issue, as he felt sure Britain and France would not support war over Serbia, and even if France was forced into war, Britain would remain neutral. Molke followed a far more realistic line, as his memo on what would happen following an Austrian declaration of war on Serbia showed. His position was that the time war right for war, and the chances in the future would be less favourable to Germany, hence his 'better sooner than later' comments from 1912 onwards. Bethmann's policy was foolish brinkmanship, Moltke's just exploited the situation Bethmann's gambling had led to.
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Basically because it left the Prussians with a Protestant majority still, though it also removed a state that may have potentially seen Austria as a better bet than the new Prussian dominated German Confederation. In 1870 there was still a good chance Austria would have sided with France had the war lasted longer before the French field armies collapsed, so it proved wise to remove Bavaria from the number of possible future enemies the new Germany could face.Futurist wrote:OK. Also, though, since Bismarck was opposed to incorporating a lot of Catholics into the new German Reich, why exactly did he support incorporating Catholic-majority Bavaria into the new German Reich?
I wouldnt say 'wanted' a war to break out as much as was willing to risk it. He would have been happy if Serbia accepted the Note, unlike Berchtold who always maintained a diplomatic victory would be worse than useless. Bethmann would also have been perfectly ok with an Austro-Serbian war, or failing that, a war between Austria and Germany against Serbia and Russia (he seems to have worked on the idea France would not side with Russia over an eastern dispute), and if that proved impossible, he was even willing to have a war with Austria and Germany against France, Russia, and Serbia. It was only a war where Britain joined in from the start he was unwilling to risk, though he seems to have deliberately viewed almost every communication from London as secondary to what he wanted London to be saying. Lichnowsky offered consistent and sensible advice through the entire crisis, and was pretty much correct on everything he said too, if Germany had acted in line with the information he provided there would have been no war. Then again, from when Lichnowsky was in Berlin in early July, Jagow and Bethmann consistently lied to him and hid their intentions, feeling he was 'too pro-British' to be trusted fully. It is significant that all the ambassadors in London agreed with Grey in the idea a conferrence along the lines of the one that prevented war over the Balkan Crisis of 1912/13 would have prevented war again, if their respective governments had followed the lines they had in that crisis.Futurist wrote:Yes, this appears to be mostly correct! However, my impression is that Bethmann wanted a general European war to break out in 1914 if Britain would remain neutral. After all, I certainly know that Bethmann was strongly concerned about Russia's growing power and influence in 1914. (Indeed, I can provide a couple of quotes in regards to this for you if you are interested, Terry. )
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
I have another question for you: Had there been no World War I but there would have still eventually been a revolution and possibly a civil war in Russia (not necessarily in the 1910s, of course, but eventually), what do you think that Germany's position towards the chaos in Russia would have been? I suspect that Germany would have been willing to support the conservative forces in Russia if they would have actually been willing to openly end Russia's alliance with France and to support any viable separatists in Russia whom they could win if the conservative forces in Russia would have refused to agree to the end of the Franco-Russian alliance.woneil wrote: ↑06 Mar 2016, 08:52Any such ambitions would have required defeating and subjecting Russia as a prerequisite. They would have compromised Russia's strategic position and maritime access, and thus her viability as a great power, and for this reason could not be achieved short of a comprehensive victory that the Großergeneralstab were far from being prepared to promise.
As I say, there were voices in Germany that called for such radical aims, just as there were in other states. But they had no discernible traction in high places, save in the occasional rantings of Wilhelm II.
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Interesting. Though of course I wonder what would have happened had Austria-Hungary entered the Franco-Prussian War. In such a scenario, Russia might have entered the war on Prussia's side, no?Terry Duncan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2016, 00:08Basically because it left the Prussians with a Protestant majority still, though it also removed a state that may have potentially seen Austria as a better bet than the new Prussian dominated German Confederation. In 1870 there was still a good chance Austria would have sided with France had the war lasted longer before the French field armies collapsed, so it proved wise to remove Bavaria from the number of possible future enemies the new Germany could face.Futurist wrote:OK. Also, though, since Bismarck was opposed to incorporating a lot of Catholics into the new German Reich, why exactly did he support incorporating Catholic-majority Bavaria into the new German Reich?
Very interesting information! Thank you for sharing!I wouldnt say 'wanted' a war to break out as much as was willing to risk it. He would have been happy if Serbia accepted the Note, unlike Berchtold who always maintained a diplomatic victory would be worse than useless. Bethmann would also have been perfectly ok with an Austro-Serbian war, or failing that, a war between Austria and Germany against Serbia and Russia (he seems to have worked on the idea France would not side with Russia over an eastern dispute), and if that proved impossible, he was even willing to have a war with Austria and Germany against France, Russia, and Serbia. It was only a war where Britain joined in from the start he was unwilling to risk, though he seems to have deliberately viewed almost every communication from London as secondary to what he wanted London to be saying. Lichnowsky offered consistent and sensible advice through the entire crisis, and was pretty much correct on everything he said too, if Germany had acted in line with the information he provided there would have been no war. Then again, from when Lichnowsky was in Berlin in early July, Jagow and Bethmann consistently lied to him and hid their intentions, feeling he was 'too pro-British' to be trusted fully. It is significant that all the ambassadors in London agreed with Grey in the idea a conferrence along the lines of the one that prevented war over the Balkan Crisis of 1912/13 would have prevented war again, if their respective governments had followed the lines they had in that crisis.Futurist wrote:Yes, this appears to be mostly correct! However, my impression is that Bethmann wanted a general European war to break out in 1914 if Britain would remain neutral. After all, I certainly know that Bethmann was strongly concerned about Russia's growing power and influence in 1914. (Indeed, I can provide a couple of quotes in regards to this for you if you are interested, Terry. )
Re: Did Imperial Germany have any territorial ambitions in Europe before the start of WWI?
Germany had no territorial ambitions in Europe prior to WW1 AFAIK. Germany was actively attempting to acquire overseas territories. For example, it attempted (in hostile negotiations) to snap up territory in Africa in exchange for a French protectorate in Morocco in 1911. With Britain, there were negotiations on the parcelling out the moribund Portugese Empire right up into 1914 I think.