“New Light on 1914?” - war origins

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#61

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2017, 14:29

The Ibis wrote:


We don't know this. Recent speculation by Schmidt and others is that French support was stronger than we may have thought - but again, that's speculation.

Schmidt is contradicted by Keiger and convincingly : Schmidt lacks the basic knowledge of French policy : to support his claim he presents( and uses his statements) a politically insignifiant personage as Poincaré : the fundamentals of the Third Republic was that the president had nothing to say . And especially not someone as Poincaré who was distrusted by the whole political class .The career of Poincaré started after WWI .

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#62

Post by The Ibis » 11 Dec 2017, 14:56

ljadw wrote:
The Ibis wrote:


We don't know this. Recent speculation by Schmidt and others is that French support was stronger than we may have thought - but again, that's speculation.

Schmidt is contradicted by Keiger and convincingly : Schmidt lacks the basic knowledge of French policy : to support his claim he presents( and uses his statements) a politically insignifiant personage as Poincaré : the fundamentals of the Third Republic was that the president had nothing to say . And especially not someone as Poincaré who was distrusted by the whole political class .The career of Poincaré started after WWI .
I'm personally more sympathetic to Keiger's arguments as well, but your criticism that he doesn't have the knowledge of French policy is refuted by Keiger himself - given he calls Schmidt's work "very well grounded in the French archives." http://jch.sagepub.com/content/48/2/363.

In any event, I don't know why you rely on Keiger given he, too, puts Poincare in the middle of French foreign policy in 1914.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel


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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#63

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Dec 2017, 14:59

ljadw wrote:France advised moderation to Russia, as in 1908.And, without the French support, Russia would not escalate the crisis, unless AH invaded Serbia, what it was unwilling to do .
France barely advised any moderation to Russia, whilst their ambassador in St Petersburg did his best in the opposite direction if anything. Personally, I do not place too much weight on the influence of Paleologue, but this does not detract from what he was saying. Russia did escalate the crisis before Serbia was invaded, both partial and full mobilisation orders pre-date the Austrian invasion of Serbia which did not take place until well after everyone was at war.

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#64

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Dec 2017, 15:01

The Ibis wrote:In any event, I don't know why you rely on Keiger given he, too, puts Poincare in the middle of French foreign policy in 1914.
I have seldom seen Poincare's role in the July Crisis dismissed as ljadw would have it, he certainly seems to have dominated Viviani in Russia and to have been treated as more important by the Russians too.

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#65

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2017, 17:58

Terry Duncan wrote:
ljadw wrote:France advised moderation to Russia, as in 1908.And, without the French support, Russia would not escalate the crisis, unless AH invaded Serbia, what it was unwilling to do .
France barely advised any moderation to Russia, whilst their ambassador in St Petersburg did his best in the opposite direction if anything. Personally, I do not place too much weight on the influence of Paleologue, but this does not detract from what he was saying. Russia did escalate the crisis before Serbia was invaded, both partial and full mobilisation orders pre-date the Austrian invasion of Serbia which did not take place until well after everyone was at war.

Paleologue was, as Isvolsky, an ambassador and an ambassador was an official who followed the instructions from his foreign office . They had no power , neither had the French foreign minister .
Power was in the hands of parliament,but only a negative power : a lot of persons had the power to block a bill, but only very few people had the power to transform a bill in a law . On this principle was founded the Third Republic . And the president was the last person who had a positive power .

That's why Poincaré was distrusted: he was suspected of ambition, of willing to do things, which in the Third Republic was considered as Caesarism: Poincaré was considered as a potential Louis Napoleon ,a would-be dictator .

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#66

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2017, 17:59

Terry Duncan wrote:
The Ibis wrote:In any event, I don't know why you rely on Keiger given he, too, puts Poincare in the middle of French foreign policy in 1914.
I have seldom seen Poincare's role in the July Crisis dismissed as ljadw would have it, he certainly seems to have dominated Viviani in Russia and to have been treated as more important by the Russians too.

If Poincaré wanted to meddle in politics, he would be impeached .

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#67

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Dec 2017, 20:38

ljadw wrote:Paleologue was, as Isvolsky, an ambassador and an ambassador was an official who followed the instructions from his foreign office . They had no power , neither had the French foreign minister .
So, who exactly was urging caution to Russia? Viviani and Poincare were at sea and pretty much out of contact, and the French government knew only what they were told by the Russian ambassador and their own ambassador who was withholding a lot of information.

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#68

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2017, 21:06

France was urging caution to Russia BEFORE the visit of Viviani and Poincaré.There was little talking about international problems during the visit, which was only ceremonial (it was the 5th visit abroad by Poincaré) and it would be very unconstitutional from Poincaré if he was giving his opinion .The office of president was ceremonial, as were the functions of the British, Belgian and Italian kings .Clemenceau, enemy number one of Poincaré said jokingly : there are 2 things that are superfluous : a prostate and the president of the republic . Clemenceau knew what he was talking about : he was doctor and politician .
I like also see the proofs for the claim that Paleologue was withholding information . I know the story, but it remains an unproved allegation . Besides why should he do this ?

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#69

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2017, 21:22

About Schmidt : he wrote that Poincaré was a convinced opponent to better relations with Germany .

1) This is more than questionable : I like to see the proofs for anti German statements by Poncaré before the war . A year before the war, there was a "mini crisis " when the German general Liman von Sanders was appointed commander of the Turkish forces in Istanbul,;the Russians raised an outcry, but Britain neither France suported Russia ,and nothing happened . And during this crise, Poincaré was French president .

2 ) If it was true, it still would be irrelevant,as the French president had no political power and as Poincaré had even no political influence .

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 27 Dec 2015, 02:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#70

Post by The Ibis » 11 Dec 2017, 23:18

ljadw wrote:
2 ) If it was true, it still would be irrelevant,as the French president had no political power and as Poincaré had even no political influence .
So Mr. Iconoclast :D, to paraphrase a famous question, if not Poincaré, "who ruled in Paris?" And please don't say Viviani.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#71

Post by South » 12 Dec 2017, 09:09

Good morning Ljadw,

Transmitting from the US,I have a basic understanding of the atmosphere from 1914. Plus, am on record here in support of some of the principles you're presenting.

You're taking specific, narrow eras and commingling them with general, broad eras to present your view. Thus, the material is not convincing.

Did the ancien regime vanish in 1914 in Russia and Turkey ? Did French workers accept and demonstrate against colonialism ? "German workers" is just too broad a term - from the East Prussias to areas next to Austria-Hungary. It was the Czar Liberator who freed the Russian serfs (3 March 61, Edict of Emancipation [President Lincoln's Emancipation was 22 months later, 1 Jan 61 [for only SOME slaves]). Meanwhile, brutes were absent in France ?

We do know about the French Revolution - especially here in the States. Many of the principles helped establish the new United States. Robespierre was "merely" the sacrificial lamb. The earlier American Revolution was really an overseas aspect of the British fight of royal prerogative versus Parliamentary rule. Pitt, Fox and Burke celebrated General Washington's victories here (had some French help).

German nationalism was present up to and including 1914 but I waiting to learn how it was different than eg Irish nationalism or Mexican nationalism. One reason for the development of nationalism was kings power at the expense of feudal lords....and this goes back well prior to the French Revolution. A bourgeoisie is more nationalistic than clergy and nobles. National languages and literature replaced Latin well prior to the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a polishing wheel for the older, rudimentary stuff. Do note that Napoleon introduced espirit de corps....but this too was not a new invention.

No significance of new trends involving rising stars eg Japan and the US ?

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#72

Post by ljadw » 12 Dec 2017, 11:49

The Ibis wrote:
ljadw wrote:
2 ) If it was true, it still would be irrelevant,as the French president had no political power and as Poincaré had even no political influence .
So Mr. Iconoclast :D, to paraphrase a famous question, if not Poincaré, "who ruled in Paris?" And please don't say Viviani.

Who ruled in Paris ?

The 500 members of the Chamber of Representatives and the members of the Senate , thus : no one .

The Third Republic was founded on the principle that the executive branch was subordinated to the Legislative branch .

The average government lasted 6 months, the reason being that the longer a government was in function, the more efficient it would be .

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#73

Post by ljadw » 12 Dec 2017, 12:07

About Poincaré,presented as pro Russian and anti German :

During the Liman von Sanders crisis " Poincaré spoke forcefully against Russia's request to join in a protest against the appointment of Liman von Sanders ."

Joll and Martel: The Origins of the First World War P 80.

The French would not support Russia if it started a war against Germany because a German general was appointed commander of Istanbul . That's why there was no war about this appointment .

The French would also not support Russia if AH started some fighting against Serbia because of Sarajevo . They did not declare war on AH after the AH declaration of war on Serbia .

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#74

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Dec 2017, 13:19

ljadw wrote:France was urging caution to Russia BEFORE the visit of Viviani and Poincaré.
Such as? As the Note had yet to surface there was very little to say, so I would love to see these pre-Note urgings.
ljadw wrote:There was little talking about international problems during the visit, which was only ceremonial (it was the 5th visit abroad by Poincaré) and it would be very unconstitutional from Poincaré if he was giving his opinion .
We do know that it was Poincare that warned the Austrian ambassador that Serbia had a friend in Russia and Russia had a friend in France, which under the circumstances was a=bout as open a threat as could be envisaged. We also know he urged Russia to take a hard line, using the rationale that it would make war less likely unless Germany and Austria had already determined on war, in which case it would make no difference anyway.
ljadw wrote:I like also see the proofs for the claim that Paleologue was withholding information . I know the story, but it remains an unproved allegation . Besides why should he do this ?
If you know the story, therefore the total lack of warnings he sent to France about Russian mobilisation decisions, and what he did send was misleading, then what evidence do you require beyond this? We have the records of other ambassadors and Sazonov to tell us the sort of line Paleologue was taking, and it was not urging caution. Why? He appears to have been following the line advocated by Poincare, that of taking a hard line. We do know Viviani had very little to say until the delegation landed back in France, so the only lead from France was supplied by Poincare.

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

Re: “New Light on 1914?” - war origins

#75

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Dec 2017, 13:25

ljadw wrote:The French would also not support Russia if AH started some fighting against Serbia because of Sarajevo . They did not declare war on AH after the AH declaration of war on Serbia .
They did support Russia though, reality tells us this. At no point did France try to back away from her obligations. Declaring war on Austria would have been utterly stupid as there is no common border for the two to fight over, in rather the same way Germany didn't rush to declare war on Serbia. Rather more important things concerned the powers at this time than declaring war on powers they couldn't do anything too, Britain and Austria being a further example of a later declaration.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”