Origins of the war - Why did Russia mobilize?

[ljadw]

There was no war on July 28, only a DoW .And there is a difference between both . If on 28 July there was a real war between AH and Serbia, there would have been a harsh Russian answer : ultimatum,or even DoW . There was no such thing , even not on 12 august, what demonstrates how far the Russians were willing to go to prevent war . And AH knew it :there was a silent agreement between AH and Russia to prevent a general war .

Yes: civil war . There would be strikes and the Army would have to be used to shoot ,which would result in civil war and what would prevent the French attack . Several cavalry regiments remained in Paris because the government feared strikes and revolts . And this was during the mobilisation only, when there was no talking of helping the Tsar .

You can't imagine the hostility of the majority of the French to the regime of the Czar and the hostility towards the army that was considered as a blackleg:frequently the army intervened to break strikes by shooting on the strikers . Between 1906 and 1909 18 people were killed by the army during strikes .

[ljadw]

At no point did France suggest she would not adhere to her alliance obligations, if anything she made it clear she would stick very close to the alliance. You seem to be the only person I have come across who insists France would never support Russia and you have provided nothing to support that idea other than opinion. Even Jaures approved of the goiverments handling of the situation up to the point he was assassinated, and was not opposing their policies.

[

In the Balkan Wars Crisis all the alliances held firm, and that came close to war too. You seem to mistake asking an ally to attempt to avoid war (in this case by persuading Serbia to give up the Adriatic port) for not holding to the alliance. There was no sign the French and Russians would split, hardly something the Germans would have missed anyhow. Also if your idea were to be correct, Germany could just attack France, it didnt need to fight Russia at all as she wouldnt support France anyhow - you do keep telling us how dead the alliance was after all. So why didnt Germany simply find an excuse to attack France?

.

1) I have provided several examples where France did not support Russia , and there are also several examples where Russia did not support France : both never supported each other,because they never had the intention to support the other . France wanted only Russian support,which it never received, and for Russia it was the opposite . It was not much different for AH and Germany . During the Russian-Japanese war the only country that suported Russia was Germany .

Mostly an alliance between A + B is not signed with the intention to help each other, but with the hope that the other would help you .

2) And Germany could NOT just attack France, because the SPD and the unions would not admit it : on 4 august Haase (leader of the SPD ) was still talking about his French friends . You have no idea of the awe and the admiration the French and German socialists had for each other and of the hatred they had for Russia . Germany needed a French DoW ,which ,it hoped, it could have if it could provoke a war in the east . Jaurès supported the French government, as long as /because it refused to fight for the Czar . Jaurès admired Germany . And he spoke German , what in 1914 was very exceptional and even today very seldom . Most French do even not speak English,although there are more English speaking French than French speaking British . One had to wait til De Gaulle to have a French politician who spoke German .

[The Ibis]

There was no war on July 28, only a DoW .And there is a difference between both . If on 28 July there was a real war between AH and Serbia, there would have been a harsh Russian answer : ultimatum,or even DoW . There was no such thing , even not on 12 august, what demonstrates how far the Russians were willing to go to prevent war . And AH knew it :there was a silent agreement between AH and Russia to prevent a general war .

When monitors fire on a nation's capital city, its war.
But I'm still looking for your source to say that a declaration of war does not mean countries are at war - especially when one side is shooting.

Also - please provide documentary evidence for this so-called silent agreement.

Yes: civil war . There would be strikes and the Army would have to be used to shoot ,which would result in civil war and what would prevent the French attack . Several cavalry regiments remained in Paris because the government feared strikes and revolts . And this was during the mobilisation only, when there was no talking of helping the Tsar .

There might have been strikes. Or there might not have been strikes. There might have been strikes that were broken. You're guessing and this isn't alternative history. You can't prove this one way or another. Perhaps you should start a thread in the alternative history forum.

You can't imagine the hostility of the majority of the French to the regime of the Czar and the hostility towards the army that was considered as a blackleg:frequently the army intervened to break strikes by shooting on the strikers . Between 1906 and 1909 18 people were killed by the army during strikes .

Interesting, but not germane.

[ljadw]

If there was a war between AH and Serbia on July 28, how to explain the passivity of Russia that did nothing to help the Serbians ?
No protest, no ultimatum, no DoW, only a mobilisation that did not help the Serbians . Russia did not declare war on AH for the war between AH and Serbia,this proves that what AH did was not that important for Russia . The " war" between AH and Serbia did not result in a war between AH and Russia .

If there was a real war between AH and Russia, Russia abandoned the Serbians and there was no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

If there was no real war between AH and Serbia,there was also no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

Not Russia declared war on AH , but AH declared war on Russia , and only on August 6, at the order of the Germans .

[South]

Good morning Ljadw,

Can you amplify with some reference examples in re:

"...the hostility of the majority [sic] of the French to the regime of the Czar".

Did the French banking / finance community want their bonds financing the Trans Siberian Railroad to become worthless ? (Recall what happened when Tavarish Lenin got signature control of the bank account !)

Did the French military establishment ie "the brass" have this hostility ?

What was the position of the French archdioceses in re your statement ?

Was not France politically divided.....to include subdivisions within the labor union trades ?

......

As an aside, 18 citizen strikers killed by the Army over 3 years is not a spike on the line graph chart......at least from my perspective when reading about this. The 3 Departments in Algeria had somewhat higher numbers.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Terry Duncan]

If there was a war between AH and Serbia on July 28, how to explain the passivity of Russia that did nothing to help the Serbians ?
No protest, no ultimatum, no DoW, only a mobilisation that did not help the Serbians .

Your second sentence contains the answer to your own question. Russia mobilised and there were sharp diplomatic exchanges in Moscow when news of the bombardments was recieved.

Russia did not declare war on AH for the war between AH and Serbia,this proves that what AH did was not that important for Russia . The " war" between AH and Serbia did not result in a war between AH and Russia .

There was no need to do anything but mobilise at this point. The Russian mobilisation depots were in the interior well away from the frontier areas, and only after the troops assembled would the move the the frontier, and then be in position to take action if needed. This would take about two weeks. Until then there was time to talk.

If there was a real war between AH and Russia, Russia abandoned the Serbians and there was no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

This doesnt appear to make very much sense, could you elaborate?

If there was no real war between AH and Serbia,there was also no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

There was a real war between Austria and Serbia, and Austria decided to move to full mobilisation upon confirmation of Russian partial mobilisation, and by fully mobilising this activated the casus foederis in the Austro-German alliance and allowed Austria to force German mobilisation irrespective of what happened elsewhere, as the Moltke-Conrad messages cover perfectly well.

Not Russia declared war on AH , but AH declared war on Russia , and only on August 6, at the order of the Germans .

Where was Russia deploying the bulk of her forces at this point? The deployments would seem to indicate an intended strike into Austria if the diplomatic talks failed. You seem to be confusing the declarations of war forced by the alliance system with the intent of each nation a week or so earlier in times of peace.

[Terry Duncan]

At no point did France suggest she would not adhere to her alliance obligations, if anything she made it clear she would stick very close to the alliance. You seem to be the only person I have come across who insists France would never support Russia and you have provided nothing to support that idea other than opinion. Even Jaures approved of the goiverments handling of the situation up to the point he was assassinated, and was not opposing their policies.

[

In the Balkan Wars Crisis all the alliances held firm, and that came close to war too. You seem to mistake asking an ally to attempt to avoid war (in this case by persuading Serbia to give up the Adriatic port) for not holding to the alliance. There was no sign the French and Russians would split, hardly something the Germans would have missed anyhow. Also if your idea were to be correct, Germany could just attack France, it didnt need to fight Russia at all as she wouldnt support France anyhow - you do keep telling us how dead the alliance was after all. So why didnt Germany simply find an excuse to attack France?

.

1) I have provided several examples where France did not support Russia , and there are also several examples where Russia did not support France : both never supported each other,because they never had the intention to support the other . France wanted only Russian support,which it never received, and for Russia it was the opposite . It was not much different for AH and Germany . During the Russian-Japanese war the only country that suported Russia was Germany .

Mostly an alliance between A + B is not signed with the intention to help each other, but with the hope that the other would help you .

2) And Germany could NOT just attack France, because the SPD and the unions would not admit it : on 4 august Haase (leader of the SPD ) was still talking about his French friends . You have no idea of the awe and the admiration the French and German socialists had for each other and of the hatred they had for Russia . Germany needed a French DoW ,which ,it hoped, it could have if it could provoke a war in the east . Jaurès supported the French government, as long as /because it refused to fight for the Czar . Jaurès admired Germany . And he spoke German , what in 1914 was very exceptional and even today very seldom . Most French do even not speak English,although there are more English speaking French than French speaking British . One had to wait til De Gaulle to have a French politician who spoke German .

The nation with the largest socialist groups, and ones that could have an impact on goverment too, was Germany, and the German socialists had been the leaders in proclaiming their members would refuse to fight fellow workers only a sort time before the war, yet when it came to it, they eagerly joined up to fight for their country when the war came. For some reason you expect people the believe the French socialists would act differently to all the other socialists in Europe, and their government would fracture too, unlike any other government - even the Austro-Hungarian people went to war united! Jaures was not opposing French policy which was generally supporting Russia, he thought the tough line taken would cause things 'to all blow over' in some of the final words of his we have recorded. In the border areas of France and Germany the locals were mostly bi-lingual, though if we want to say people with a language barrier were somehow significant to their nation, this bodes ill for some areas like Brittany where people spoke a different language as their first language and not all spoke French at all.

Providing examples where France or Russia did not support each other really matters little when we are discussng the July Crisis where they did start out supporting each other, and like everyone else, were somewhat overtaken by events that in turn removed all flexibility from them. There is still no indication either was going to back away and desert the other during this crisis, France did little to urge Russia to not escalate things, let alone suggest that they would not support the hard line Russia was taking.

We can argue all you like about if it was France's responsibility to try and restrain Russia, but at no point did France suggest Russia would stand alone or that the alliance was dead like you claim. France mobilised before Germany, why did they do so unless they planned to honour the alliance.

[The Ibis]

If there was a war between AH and Serbia on July 28, how to explain the passivity of Russia that did nothing to help the Serbians ?
No protest, no ultimatum, no DoW, only a mobilisation that did not help the Serbians . Russia did not declare war on AH for the war between AH and Serbia,this proves that what AH did was not that important for Russia . The " war" between AH and Serbia did not result in a war between AH and Russia .

If there was a real war between AH and Russia, Russia abandoned the Serbians and there was no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

If there was no real war between AH and Serbia,there was also no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

Not Russia declared war on AH , but AH declared war on Russia , and only on August 6, at the order of the Germans .

Terry responded point by point. But I wanted to address the bolded comment above to say - there was only a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia because Austria went to war against Serbia. Even if you (and it appears only you ) assume that Austria only went to war because of German pressure and German intent to crush France, it still took the war between Austria and Serbia to start the ball rolling. Indeed, it is a fundamental pillar of your whole theory and I'm not sure why you're running from it.

[The Ibis]

We can argue all you like about if it was France's responsibility to try and restrain Russia,

I hear people say that (not sure I have ever see you say that, but ... there are others). I never see the source for this alleged responsibility other than hindsight.

... France mobilised before Germany, why did they do so unless they planned to honour the alliance

Well, that incredible ultimatum might have had something to do with it.

[ljadw]

Good morning Ljadw,

Can you amplify with some reference examples in re:

"...the hostility of the majority [sic] of the French to the regime of the Czar".

Did the French banking / finance community want their bonds financing the Trans Siberian Railroad to become worthless ? (Recall what happened when Tavarish Lenin got signature control of the bank account !)

Did the French military establishment ie "the brass" have this hostility ?

What was the position of the French archdioceses in re your statement ?

Was not France politically divided.....to include subdivisions within the labor union trades ?

......

As an aside, 18 citizen strikers killed by the Army over 3 years is not a spike on the line graph chart......at least from my perspective when reading about this. The 3 Departments in Algeria had somewhat higher numbers.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Before the war, most French voted left (especially in 1914) and the SFIO (French Section of the Workers International) with its union (CGT) were arch-enemies of the Tsar:on July 7 , the socialist in the French Chamber voted against the credits to finance the visite of Poincaré to Russia, something they did not for the visits to Britain and Spain .

This hostility was shared by the center-left parties : some one as Clemenceau expressed publicly his indignation about the reprisals and massacres which followed the failed revolution of 1905 in Russia .

In most of Europe,also in Britain and Germany, the Tsar was considered as a bloodhound, a modern version of Kim Il Jun, Assad, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler .

The French bankers had no political preferences : bankers are lending money to everyone, today even to Kim .In the past to Hirohito and Hitler .

The French generals also were indiferent to the regime that was ruling in Russia : the only important thing was the number of divisions that the tsar /Stalin could send to HELP France , but there was never a question that France would help Russia . The Russians were only cannon fodder .

The French catholic church was not interested in foreign policy , only in home affairs , as it was for most French . The French detested the Russian regime (also in 1939) but this regime had a lot of soldiers who would kill a lot of Germans if there was a war between France and Germany .

The left also detested the army (as in Belgium) because (as in Belgium) the army was used to crush the unions . They looked with admiration at Germany, where the army remained in the barracks and where the workers had a social security system of which the French only could dream about .

For references : almost all sources are in French .But you could look at a biography of Clemenceau in Wiki and there is also Fiona Tomaszewski's "Pump, Circumstance and Realpolitik" : the evolution of the Triple Entente of Russia, GB and France " PP 362-380 .You could (if possible ) also consult the NYT of February 20 1904 with as title : Dislike Russia Alliance : All the French socialist deputies are against it .

[ljadw]

If there was a war between AH and Serbia on July 28, how to explain the passivity of Russia that did nothing to help the Serbians ?
No protest, no ultimatum, no DoW, only a mobilisation that did not help the Serbians . Russia did not declare war on AH for the war between AH and Serbia,this proves that what AH did was not that important for Russia . The " war" between AH and Serbia did not result in a war between AH and Russia .

If there was a real war between AH and Russia, Russia abandoned the Serbians and there was no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

If there was no real war between AH and Serbia,there was also no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

Not Russia declared war on AH , but AH declared war on Russia , and only on August 6, at the order of the Germans .

Terry responded point by point. But I wanted to address the bolded comment above to say - there was only a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia because Austria went to war against Serbia. Even if you (and it appears only you ) assume that Austria only went to war because of German pressure and German intent to crush France, it still took the war between Austria and Serbia to start the ball rolling. Indeed, it is a fundamental pillar of your whole theory and I'm not sure why you're running from it.

Source :

Germany opts for war, now or never (Fischer ) :

"On July 31, Moltke cabled Conrad : Will Austria leave Germany in the lurch ? "

"After the war, Waldersee complained to Jagow : People in Vienna still wished to avoid the armed clash with Russia ."

These two prove that till the last moment Vienna tried to avoid war with Russia .

And we know that Vienna declared war on Russia (6 august : after the German DoW on Russia and France and the invasion of the West) only after a threatening message from Berlin .

On August 1 the ball was not rolling, that's why Germany, which wanted the ball rolling, took the initiative . On that day, there was no war between AH and Russia, that's why Germany forced the blocked situation .

There was only a war between AH and Russia, because Germany ordered AH to declare war on Russia .

Between 1 and 6 august there was only war between Germany and Russia, AH joined unwillingly only on 6 august .

[The Ibis]

If there was a war between AH and Serbia on July 28, how to explain the passivity of Russia that did nothing to help the Serbians ?
No protest, no ultimatum, no DoW, only a mobilisation that did not help the Serbians . Russia did not declare war on AH for the war between AH and Serbia,this proves that what AH did was not that important for Russia . The " war" between AH and Serbia did not result in a war between AH and Russia .

If there was a real war between AH and Russia, Russia abandoned the Serbians and there was no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

If there was no real war between AH and Serbia,there was also no need for Germany to declare war on Russia .

Not Russia declared war on AH , but AH declared war on Russia , and only on August 6, at the order of the Germans .

Terry responded point by point. But I wanted to address the bolded comment above to say - there was only a war between Austria-Hungary and Russia because Austria went to war against Serbia. Even if you (and it appears only you ) assume that Austria only went to war because of German pressure and German intent to crush France, it still took the war between Austria and Serbia to start the ball rolling. Indeed, it is a fundamental pillar of your whole theory and I'm not sure why you're running from it.

Source :

Germany opts for war, now or never (Fischer ) :

"On July 31, Moltke cabled Conrad : Will Austria leave Germany in the lurch ? "

"After the war, Waldersee complained to Jagow : People in Vienna still wished to avoid the armed clash with Russia ."

These two prove that till the last moment Vienna tried to avoid war with Russia .

And we know that Vienna declared war on Russia (6 august : after the German DoW on Russia and France and the invasion of the West) only after a threatening message from Berlin .

On August 1 the ball was not rolling, that's why Germany, which wanted the ball rolling, took the initiative . On that day, there was no war between AH and Russia, that's why Germany forced the blocked situation .

There was only a war between AH and Russia, because Germany ordered AH to declare war on Russia .

Between 1 and 6 august there was only war between Germany and Russia, AH joined unwillingly only on 6 august .

I've edited my post given I now realize where you are coming from. Whether you acknowledge it or not (maybe you came to your conclusion independently), you're echoing a part of Dale Copeland's arguments from The Origins of Major War. I know you diverge with him on preventative war, but many of your bases - including (IMO) an overreliance on Moltke - are the same.

[South]

Good afternoon Ljadw,

Appreciate your reply with examples.

I do have some pertinent references in English here.

You did present a quality reply.......yet it is focused on the voting electorate and center-left parties......and then transitions to the absolutes or near-absolutes eg "In most of Europe".

Some components of Europe did support the ancien regime of the Czars.

In the 1890s, the Czar's finance minister Sergi Waite, obtained much financing from French interests in re the Trans Siberian Railroad construction. French bankers / financial interests weren't loaning funds for economic development in German Southwest Africa. Of course bankers loan to all sides - with parameters and limits -. As much as I'm adding a little sarcasm and joking around, key French financial institutes DID have political preferences. Today it might be an AirBus versus Boeing example (exceptions abound but hidden).

Review le affaire Dreyfus. France did indeed have fractures.

Do you not think the French Catholic Church was not following the political order of battle of the Russian "sailors' revolt" in 1905 (mentioned around here somewhere) ?

What was the book "The Red and the Black" about ?

"Most French" who made their fortunes or held their jobs involving eg French Congo or French IndoChina had an interest beyond home affairs.

After the French Revolution, the nation of the Sun King was fractured. Louis lost his job HOWEVER the follow-on Reign of Terror was not sponsored by the ancien regime. It was a mess, as the only word I can think of using and national healing did not occur at the beginning of the 20th century.

The French socialist political entities were a force in French politics but they were not alone in the arena.

~Bob
eastern Virginia

[Terry Duncan]

hear people say that (not sure I have ever see you say that, but ... there are others). I never see the source for this alleged responsibility other than hindsight.

I don't think the idea has much validity, but it is more or less what happened when there was more time to make decisions, one power would decide it didn't think the risk of war was worth it and they would then pressure the other to come to terms. There is no requirement they do anything, but the loss of life and capital means that all courses should be pursued by a power specifically trying to avoid war.

Well, that incredible ultimatum might have had something to do with it.

To be fair, by that point France had already started taking precautions, and The Netherlands and Belgium had already announced their mobilisations, something people always overlook. When were the Dutch rigging bridges and tunnels for demolition from 25th July onwards? Why did Belgium decide that a crisis in the Balkans was making garrisoning their own fortress system an urgent matter. The 'Germany did nothing wrong' or indeed the 'France did nothing wrong' people really do need to consider why these two perpetually neutral nations felt the need to prepare to fight if their two powerful neighbours were not already starting to look threatening. The crisis didn't suddenly get hot when Russia mobilised the initial districts or even when they were all deciding to mobilise, the signs were there to such an extent that two small nations felt the need to react from the moment the Serbian reply to the Note was received. From what I can tell after reading all too many books on this subject, they had not moblised in the previous crises so something was different this time.

To my mind the fatal mistake was the speed the July Crisis was played out. Every other crisis took months to play out, the July Crisis really was just two weeks of very fast decision making, and oddly enough every single power behaved as people had been predicting for a decade or so. Even Italy did exactly as was expected! The lack of time meant that as things became more critical and suspicions ran high, people adhered to the stability of the alliance system and the status quo even more closely than usual. Any attempt to change to those factors that may have taken place over time did not happen in July, there simply was no time given the severity of the risks. It really was no the time to go alliance hoping or destroying your own alliance in the face of a rival threat.

The German ultimatum to France did little other than to confirm to the French everything they suspected. The French reply confirmed to them everything they suspected too, and in each case the alliances were never called into question.

[The Ibis]

hear people say that (not sure I have ever see you say that, but ... there are others). I never see the source for this alleged responsibility other than hindsight.

I don't think the idea has much validity, but it is more or less what happened when there was more time to make decisions, one power would decide it didn't think the risk of war was worth it and they would then pressure the other to come to terms. There is no requirement they do anything, but the loss of life and capital means that all courses should be pursued by a power specifically trying to avoid war.

The problem is that "all courses" can imply surrender. Neither Austria nor Russia was willing to back down in 1914. The way things played out early in the crisis, I'm not sure they could have been compelled to do so by any means within reasonable possibility. Of course, what is reasonable is subject to debate (i.e. could Germany have threatened to - or actually - abandoned Austria without significant security reprecussion).

Well, that incredible ultimatum might have had something to do with it.

To be fair, by that point France had already started taking precautions, and The Netherlands and Belgium had already announced their mobilisations, something people always overlook. When were the Dutch rigging bridges and tunnels for demolition from 25th July onwards? Why did Belgium decide that a crisis in the Balkans was making garrisoning their own fortress system an urgent matter. The 'Germany did nothing wrong' or indeed the 'France did nothing wrong' people really do need to consider why these two perpetually neutral nations felt the need to prepare to fight if their two powerful neighbours were not already starting to look threatening. The crisis didn't suddenly get hot when Russia mobilised the initial districts or even when they were all deciding to mobilise, the signs were there to such an extent that two small nations felt the need to react from the moment the Serbian reply to the Note was received. From what I can tell after reading all too many books on this subject, they had not moblised in the previous crises so something was different this time.

To my mind the fatal mistake was the speed the July Crisis was played out. Every other crisis took months to play out, the July Crisis really was just two weeks of very fast decision making, and oddly enough every single power behaved as people had been predicting for a decade or so. Even Italy did exactly as was expected! The lack of time meant that as things became more critical and suspicions ran high, people adhered to the stability of the alliance system and the status quo even more closely than usual. Any attempt to change to those factors that may have taken place over time did not happen in July, there simply was no time given the severity of the risks. It really was no the time to go alliance hoping or destroying your own alliance in the face of a rival threat.

The German ultimatum to France did little other than to confirm to the French everything they suspected. The French reply confirmed to them everything they suspected too, and in each case the alliances were never called into question.

I was being slightly facetious. I agree with you about the impact of the ultimatum vis a vis confirming suspicions. I might put more stock in it though. Just think how you react when the lightbulb goes off on something you were pretty sure about, and then someone does something to confirm [insert picture of Michael Corleone with his brother in Havana saying "I know it was you, Fredo," or, alternately, picture of Harry saying to Lloyd "Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"]

On time - yes definitely a factor but I'm not sure why you say it was a mistake. Time was compressed for everyone. No one could afford to slow down and let the other side have too much initiative.

Re speed - again