Why didn't Britain stay neutral?

[MarkN]

From the ridiculous to the sublime; from absurd to absurdly bizarre!

No one took any notice of what the Kaiser was saying,because he was panicking and talking nonsense : before the war, when some one argued that the BEF would intervene if Germany invaded Belgium, he boasted that when they would land on the continent, they would be taken prisonner.And now, he was talking about not attacking in the West, but limiting the war to the East, although he knew very well that the only meaning for the war in the East was to trigger and make possible the war in the West;besides, there were NO plans for a war in the East.

As von Jagow said in 1926 :War kein Krieg mit Russland, so bestand überhaupt kein Anlass für uns zum Kriege im Westen .

If there was no war in the East, there was no reason for war in the West .

Source : Willibald Gutsche:Sarajevo 1914: Vom Attentat zum Weltkrieg .

What Wilhelm proposed ( Aufmarsch Anweisung Ost ) was impossible (Russia was unbeatable in a short war), senseless (without war in the West, there was no reason for war in the East) and suicidal (if the war in the East was won, Germany would be broken, and be infected by revolutionary ideas);that's why everyone did as if they did not hear it,with the exception of Moltke who said flatly : it is militarily impossible .
There was nothing to gain by fighting in the East, only to lose .

Your opinion contradicts the quote you base your opinon on. :roll:

And you do the same again ...

The only reason for a war against Russia was political = to make a war in the West possible . If therre was no war in the West, there was no reason for a war in the East .

...

War kein Krieg mit Russland, so bestand überhaupt kein Anlass für uns zum Kriege im Westen .

Falsehoods. Absurdities and the absurdly bizarre.

[ljadw]

Ljadw If Britain did nothing and France was defeated, Germany would occupy the Atlantic/Channel coast from the Pyrenees to Denmark (the Netherlands would be a German satellite .)

The Kaiser’s neutrality offer of 1 August was that the German army would march east into Poland and the British would prevent the French from falling on Germany's undefended rear. My knowledge of European geography is admittingly not perfect, but I don’t think the Pyrenees are in Poland.

There was no such offer : on 1 August Germany invaded Luxemburg, besides the Kaiser was in no position to offer anything, as he no longer was commanding .

We've had pages of absurd reasoning and absurd logic. Now we have to suffer complete falsehoods!

This telegram is not an offer, but a lie .

It was adressed some one who had no political power, thus it was not serious.

He said that on technical grounds he could not stop his mobilisation, which is a lie : mobilisation can always be stopped .

He forgets to mention that the German mobilisation meant war and that the war in the west was already going on .

And while he said that it was impossible to stop the advance to Belgium and France, he said also : if France abandons Russia, it will be technically be possible to stop this advance and to advance to Russia .

Besides, he knew very well that an Aufmarsch Anweisung Ost was impossible , thus he was lying, again . And, if he did not know that an Aufmarsch Anweisung Ost was impossible, he had not lost some but all of his marbles .

Last point : HOW could French neutrality be guaranteed by the British fleet and army ?

[Terry Duncan]

Thus,what the Kaiser proposed proved that he had lost some of his marbles,he was all loopity-doopity-doopy, that he had no guts.

The Kaiser would seem to have been far more in touch that his ministers were, and his desire to avoid war hardly shows he had no guts, it was a stupid cause to go to war over, and war would ruin Germany even if she won.

[Terry Duncan]

This telegram is not an offer, but a lie .

OK, prove that claim.

It was adressed some one who had no political power, thus it was not serious.

This is partly why I avoided citing this telegram, although the Kaiser clearly believed that the monarchs wielded far more power than they did, but it does clearly show he was willing to make an offer that would secure peace in the west. The offer was made, which puts your claim that no offer was made in a very bad light.

He said that on technical grounds he could not stop his mobilisation, which is a lie : mobilisation can always be stopped .

The same claims were made by the Russians and Germans, mobilisation once ordered could not be stopped, but the troops could be held at their mobilisation depots and not deployed to their war stations. Given the diplomatic situation at this point, they are correct, mobilisation could not safely be stopped.

He forgets to mention that the German mobilisation meant war and that the war in the west was already going on .

There was little reason the Germans could not impose a delay within their planning, there was a 48 hour gap where they would do nothing that required a declaration of war, and this would allow further time for diplomacy to seek a peaceful solution.

And while he said that it was impossible to stop the advance to Belgium and France, he said also : if France abandons Russia, it will be technically be possible to stop this advance and to advance to Russia .

It was impossible to stop events already happening, but his offer was to not attack France under the conditions the Kaiser believed to be being offered.

Besides, he knew very well that an Aufmarsch Anweisung Ost was impossible , thus he was lying, again . And, if he did not know that an Aufmarsch Anweisung Ost was impossible, he had not lost some but all of his marbles .

Groener was asked about the possibility of deploying the army in the east and fighting Russia and stated that it would have been possible within 2-3 days of being requested, and such an alteration of the war plan was possible. He, and many of the GGS, were irritated by the suggestion they were incapable of producing a war plan that adapted to the situation. Aufsmarsch Ost was not planned for in 1914, but it was not impossible to request a new plan and implement it. It is also not entirely clear the Kaiser was aware there was no plan for what he was asking, he and others like Tirpitz were all rather taken aback when Moltke told them it was not an option anymore.

Last point : HOW could French neutrality be guaranteed by the British fleet and army ?

The practicality of the suggestion does not change the fact an offer was made.

[ljadw]

The whole thing is a myth : there was no German offer, but an answer on a message , wrong message, from Lichnowsky, who proved to be a failure as ambassador : Lichnowsky told the following story (which he retracted some hours later ): British sources (he did not tell which ones ) assured me that Britain would make sure that France will remain neutral if Germany does not attack France (IOW: if Germany only attacks Russia).

Why should any one believe this ridiculous story (except the Kaiser ) , Did Lichnowsky not know that France was NOT a British colony and that Britain could not decide for her ?

Besides, it was a public secret that France would not fight if Germany attacked Russia, which was not helping the German business .Moltke said : even if it is true, France must abandon its fortifications, which France would not do, and what Moltke knew, so that his attack on France still would go on .
The answer from Wilhelm :what he said was impossible : he said that if the British offer was true (which it could not be ) he would only attack Russia ,while everyone in Berlin knew that this was impossible, senseless and suicidal ;diary from Falkenhayn 1 August : "the Crown prince asked me if the pourparlers with London would alter our mobilisation plans : I answered : fortunately no .

The war against Russia had only a political motive (= to make a war with France possible ) , if there was no war with France, there would be no war with Russia , and ,when the Kaiser recovered from his nervous breakdown, he admitted it : he said to his troops : you will be back in the Heimat before the leafs will fall from the trees .

After a successful war against France, the war with Russia would stop .

Thus, what the Kaiser said (I will send my army elsewhere) was nonsense .

If he knew it, he was a liar .

If he did not know it, he was a fool .

There was no British offer, no German offer ,only a fabulation with as chief responsible Lichnowsky, and this fabulation, this myth is still perpetuated by the German lobby to innocent Germany for the outbreak of the war .

[MarkN]

The whole thing is a myth : there was no German offer, but an answer on a message , wrong message, from Lichnowsky, who proved to be a failure as ambassador : Lichnowsky told the following story (which he retracted some hours later ): British sources (he did not tell which ones ) assured me that Britain would make sure that France will remain neutral if Germany does not attack France (IOW: if Germany only attacks Russia).

Why should any one believe this ridiculous story (except the Kaiser ) , Did Lichnowsky not know that France was NOT a British colony and that Britain could not decide for her ?

Besides, it was a public secret that France would not fight if Germany attacked Russia, which was not helping the German business .Moltke said : even if it is true, France must abandon its fortifications, which France would not do, and what Moltke knew, so that his attack on France still would go on .
The answer from Wilhelm :what he said was impossible : he said that if the British offer was true (which it could not be ) he would only attack Russia ,while everyone in Berlin knew that this was impossible, senseless and suicidal ;diary from Falkenhayn 1 August : "the Crown prince asked me if the pourparlers with London would alter our mobilisation plans : I answered : fortunately no .

The war against Russia had only a political motive (= to make a war with France possible ) , if there was no war with France, there would be no war with Russia , and ,when the Kaiser recovered from his nervous breakdown, he admitted it : he said to his troops : you will be back in the Heimat before the leafs will fall from the trees .

After a successful war against France, the war with Russia would stop .

Thus, what the Kaiser said (I will send my army elsewhere) was nonsense .

If he knew it, he was a liar .

If he did not know it, he was a fool .

There was no British offer, no German offer ,only a fabulation with as chief responsible Lichnowsky, and this fabulation, this myth is still perpetuated by the German lobby to innocent Germany for the outbreak of the war .

This one is a real smorgasbord of outright falsehoods, ljadw 2018 WHAT IFs, absurd reasoning and complete historical disconnect - perhaps even realworld disconnect... :roll:

[MarkN]

This telegram is not an offer, but a lie .

OK, prove that claim.

Could be a long, long, LOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG wait.

Still waiting for evidence, any evidence, to support the theory about Antwerp being the reason for British entry to WW1.

The theory currently on the table is based around everybody lying. Any historical evidence that contradicts the ljadw theory is a lie. Grey and Asquith lied to the House. The Kaiser lied to the King. Grey lied to Lichnowsky. It was a lie that France would go to war with Germany. It was a lie that Germany was at war with Russia. And so on and on ...

A little while ago, another ljadw theory was defended by moving April into the summer. Apparantly every calendar etc is lying about when the seasons fall!!!! :roll:

[ljadw]

Yes it was a lie that France would go to war with Germany, because, but you don't know this, it was Germany that was going to war with France : on 1 August it invaded Luxemburg, but you don't know this,,which was the preparation of the war with France and on 2 August,it invaded France (the first French soldier was killed that day, an other thing you don't know), and it declared war on France only on 4 August (it had to invent a reason for this DoW ) .

And, it is YOU who claim that Grey lied to Lichnowsky,for which you have no proof,you even don't know that Grey talked to Lichnowsky . I only said that lichnowsky gave wrong information to Berlin .

[Max Payload]

The whole thing is a myth : there was no German offer, but an answer on a message ...
Why should any one believe this ridiculous story (except the Kaiser ) ...
There was no British offer, no German offer ,only a fabulation ...

The argument here seems to be that the Kaiser's 7pm telegram of 1st August did not constitute an offer because either:
a) it was made by someone of low intelligence (the Kaiser being too stupid to recognise flaws in Lichnowsky's assessment of the British position) or
b) it was insincere (because the Kaiser was not stupid)
Not only is this a flawed argument (even an insincere offer made by an idiot is still an offer) but unless the Kaiser's senior advisors had no input into the telegram, they too by the above logic could be deemed either collectively stupid or insincere.
If the telegram was 'not an offer but a lie', why did Moltke that day telephone orders to 16th Division to halt its invasion of Luxembourg (an invasion that had in part begun).
Besides, hesitation and a degree of policy confusion in sectors of the Berlin establishment in the closing days of July do not 'innocent Germany for the outbreak of the war'. Germany had a well-established existential threat now-or-never war party to which the Kaiser and his government had long lent a more than sympathetic ear.

[ljadw]

The advisors of the Kaiser did not take into account what he said :

His minister of war said : the pourparlers with Britain will change nothing on our plans : Falkenhayn ignored the Kaiser.

His chief of staff said : a British promise is insufficient : a minimum guarantee for the French neutrality would be the occupation of the fortifications of Toul and Verdun . The same was told to the German ambassador in Paris : if the French say that they will remain neutral, you must demand the occupation of the fortifications of Verdun and Toul .Something the French would refuse , which is why the Germans would demand it .

His foreign secretary (Jagow ) said after the war :if there was no war with Russia, we could not attack France .Which means:if there was no war with France, there was no reason to attack Russia, thus : why said the Kaiser : if Britain can guarantee French neutrality , I will only attack Russia ? This proves that or he was lying, or he was a fool /had a nervous breakdown .

What Jagow said after the war was repeated on 1 August by the number one advisor : Bethmann : when Ballin asked him a few hours before the DoW on Russia why he was in such a hurry, he answered : otherwise the SPD will not support me ;which means that the war on Russia had only a political motive : to make the war in the West possible . Thus, what the Kaiser said was nonsense .

And last,but not least, a few days later, the Kaiser himself was contradicting what he said as answer to the British proposal :he said to his troops who were marching to the West : you will be very soon back in the Heimat (before the leafs will fall from the trees):in the HEIMAT: not in Poland :which means : after a victotory in the West, NO WAR IN THE EAST .

Conclusion : William was lying or had a nervous breakdown /was a fool .Or it was all three : only a fool would change his strategy on the promise of Britain that it would force France to remain neutral .

If Britain had said that it would force Russia to remain neutral , what would William have said ?

[MarkN]

And, it is YOU who claim that Grey lied to Lichnowsky,for which you have no proof,you even don't know that Grey talked to Lichnowsky .

I did not claim he lied so I do not need proof. The only time I have put the words "Lichnowsky" and "lied" together is in my preceding post where I summarised your opinions in this thread.

I only said that lichnowsky gave wrong information to Berlin .

No. You said the complete opposite.

1) The first telegram was correct:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5#p2122005

Do make up your mind!

++++

If the telegram was 'not an offer but a lie', why did Moltke that day telephone orders to 16th Division to halt its invasion of Luxembourg (an invasion that had in part begun).

Clearly Moltke calling the 16th Division and halting them / turning them back is yet another lie since it contradicts the ljadw theory. I mean, why would he do it when everybody in Berlin was still for press-on and the Kaiser no longer had any power whatsoever to command him to do anything? Remember, the Kaiser's offer was a lie and so any actions related to that lie must also be a lie.

:roll:

[South]

Good morning all,

Sidebar; Glenn, glad to see you back here at AHF.

Europe's Atlantic area being discussed does go southward to Bayonne, France close to Spain. Thus, a defeated France could witness Bayonne and coast down to the Spanish frontier under German occupation. This is the Pyrenees mountain range area between France and Spain. A German-occupied Bayonne does produce headaches for Gibraltar, BCC.

Lw's statement is correct. I added the Gibraltar matter.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

[ljadw]

And, it is YOU who claim that Grey lied to Lichnowsky,for which you have no proof,you even don't know that Grey talked to Lichnowsky .

I did not claim he lied so I do not need proof. The only time I have put the words "Lichnowsky" and "lied" together is in my preceding post where I summarised your opinions in this thread.

I only said that lichnowsky gave wrong information to Berlin .

No. You said the complete opposite.

1) The first telegram was correct:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5#p2122005

Do make up your mind!

++++

If the telegram was 'not an offer but a lie', why did Moltke that day telephone orders to 16th Division to halt its invasion of Luxembourg (an invasion that had in part begun).

Clearly Moltke calling the 16th Division and halting them / turning them back is yet another lie since it contradicts the ljadw theory. I mean, why would he do it when everybody in Berlin was still for press-on and the Kaiser no longer had any power whatsoever to command him to do anything? Remember, the Kaiser's offer was a lie and so any actions related to that lie must also be a lie.

:roll:

There was no offer from the Kaiser .

And the 6 German armies continued their advance .

[ljadw]

And, it is YOU who claim that Grey lied to Lichnowsky,for which you have no proof,you even don't know that Grey talked to Lichnowsky .

I did not claim he lied so I do not need proof. The only time I have put the words "Lichnowsky" and "lied" together is in my preceding post where I summarised your opinions in this thread.

I only said that lichnowsky gave wrong information to Berlin .

No. You said the complete opposite.

1) The first telegram was correct:
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5#p2122005

Do make up your mind!

++++

If the telegram was 'not an offer but a lie', why did Moltke that day telephone orders to 16th Division to halt its invasion of Luxembourg (an invasion that had in part begun).

Clearly Moltke calling the 16th Division and halting them / turning them back is yet another lie since it contradicts the ljadw theory. I mean, why would he do it when everybody in Berlin was still for press-on and the Kaiser no longer had any power whatsoever to command him to do anything? Remember, the Kaiser's offer was a lie and so any actions related to that lie must also be a lie.

:roll:

In the first telegram, Lichnowsky said that Britain would order France to remain neutral in a war between Germany and Russia (a lot of nonsense ) and that there was no need for Germany to invade France and that Britain would remain neutral in a war between Germany and Russia (which was correct ) .

A few hours later, Lichnowsky said :burn the first telegram, I misunderstood the British (proving that he was not fit as ambassador): the British will not order France to remain neutral in a war between Germany and Russia (something even the biggest Dumpkopf in Germany knew) and it is uncertain that they will remain neutral in a war between Germany and Russia (which was not correct ) .

Conclusion : Lichnowsky was telling nonsense ( I know that this is the job of ambassadors, but there is a limit ) and the Kaiser ? Or he was lying, or he was a fool / with /without a nervous breakdown .

[ljadw]

Here is what Lichnowsky was saying in his first telegram :"Judging from Sir William's (Tyrrel) hints, this would appear to mean that, in the case we did not attack France, England would remain neutral and would guarantee France's neutrality ."

Source : Understanding the "misunderstanding" of 1 August 1914 (K.Wilson )

One will notice that Lichnowsky was using words as hints, appear, mean , thus meaningless blahblah .

In plain English, he said : I believe that, if we can interprete the hints of Tyrrell, they appear to mean that if we do not attack France, England will remain neutral and order France to remain neutral in a war between us and Russia .

Only some one very stupid would believe this and change his strategy because of this . If the Kaiser was not very stupid, he was a liar ;there are convincing arguments for both conclusions .

Whatever, no one in Berlin took into account what Lichnowky said he believed Tyrrell meant . And the advance to the West continued . If the Kaiser was sincere, why did he not stop the advance to the West ?

Besides, even if the story of Lichnowsky was true, why should Germany have changed her strategy ? The Kaiser had said : it's now or never : it is now the only chance we have to attack France , not :to attack Russia .