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: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#61

Post by glenn239 » 02 Mar 2021, 18:15

Ружичасти Слон"
Only on glen imagination story was not be policy.
It's "Glenn", not 'glen'.
On real history when cabinet minister was offer resign he was not resign on cabinet he was resign on position minister. When grey was propose resign he was say he must to stop be foreign minister.... On imagination story asquith "follow" grey then that was mean he must to resign on pm.
No. Grey said he would resign from cabinet around 2 August if Britain chose neutrality, and Asquith said he would go also, if Grey did. The implication was that if Grey went, that particular cabinet would cease to exist. But, Grey would still have the House backing to be the foreign minister in the next cabinet and Asquith would have the backing to be PM. When Asquith formed his next cabinet, it can be safely assumed that none of its members would be obstructionists.
On evening on 2.august 1914.year 17 mens on britain cabinet was agree on respect 1839.year treaty was be britain policy on context germany decision for to attack belgium.
No, you are wrong. Here,

https://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/1914m/ ... 76-500.htm

In no. 487 Grey the French ambassador set out the British position as of 2 August 1914. On the matter of Belgium, they were still "considering" in cabinet what their policy would be. Read the document, no. 487. Grey is 100% clear that the violation of Belgium had not been made an automatic casus belli, and in fact, would not be until it was certain that the Germans, (and not the French) would be the ones doing the violating. So, the 1839 policy was not driving British decision making.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#62

Post by glenn239 » 02 Mar 2021, 18:34

Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Feb 2021, 19:25
Only because Germany was intending to make those decisions for everyone else by declaring war on them.
Since the Russians continued with their "A" variant mobilization even when at war with Germany, and while signaling diplomatically to the Austrians, it is concluded that the Russians were being deceptive and no intention other than to attack Austria once their mobilization preparations were completed. Otherwise, why didn't they switch to their G variant mobilization on 2 August?

If the Russians were lying to the Austrians after 1 August, then they were lying to them before 1 August....
There were points where it was though one or more European powers might join the Boers, the power making the most noise probably needs no direct mention!?
The British continued alliance discussions with Germany during the Boer War. Were they confused?
Russia 'went to war' because it was attempting to stop Austria attacking Serbia. Russia and Britain were still trying to create an acceptable formula to save the peace at the end of the crisis, unlike Austria and Germany who made no proposals for a peaceful solution and had already long before decided that war was the desirable outcome.
The Russian Tzar issued a proclimation in August 1914 liberating Poland from German and Austrian rule because this was needed to stop an Austrian attack on Serbia? This is what you are saying? The Russians thought that unifying Poland under the Russian flag was a necessary precondition to stopping an Austrian attack on Serbia?

Grey said that if Austria could manage to have a war with Serbia where no other power was involved then there was no problem, but if another power did become involved it would end in catastrophe. Austria made no attempt to lay any diplomatic grounds allowing such an outcome. Austria also involved Germany from the first week in July, who's only real attempt for a settlement was to demand Austria be able to do as it liked whilst threatening anyone who may not like such a settlement, other than to lie to everyone about knowing nothing long after it became obvious they were directly involved.
Grey's only neutrality proposal to Germany (29 July) was that if Germany remained neutral in an Austro-Russian war, that France and Britain could remain neutral also. This meant that any Germany conflict with Russia automatically brought with it the prospect of Anglo-French intervention against Germany. That was the Entente policy and not the 1839 treaty as the driving force..

So, why didnt war break out in 1909, 1911, 1913 etc? The 'adventurism' that took Europe to war in 1914 was Austrian and German adventurism, attempting to start a war whilst ignoring other powers interests. Why is it that the only suggestions for a settlement short of war came from the Entente powers or Italy? None came from Austria or Germany.
Because Russia had been so badly defeated in 1905 that it took until 1914 before it was confident to start a world war.
There was no indication he was going to be killed in 1914, indeed even in 1916 it was not the most likely outcome. The Tzar was indeed an idiot, he should not have taken control of the army and he should have locked his idiot wife in a monastry where she could do no harm in true Tzarist fashion. Hindsight and imagination are poor substitutes for factual knowledge of the time when the decisions were made.
Russian incompetence doomed the Russian empire and ended the Romanov dynasty. By 1914 it should have been clear to Russian leaders that the time for the alliance with France was ending. The Russian Romanov dynasty's future was with the other monarchies.

That is rather laughable. France was clearly the strongest power in Europe after WWI and had the terms of Versailles been enforced Germany, with is 100,000 man army was not going to scoop up anything.
France occupied Germany in the 1920's and failed miserably because it was the strongest power?
Quite possibly not if France had declared war on Germany. There would be debate certainly, and it is possible that Britain would join in, but it is also possible they would not do so in the case of a Franco-Russian attack on Germany as Grey hinted at to Lichnowsky when considering the future 'if the present crisis could be passed'.
Britain was entering the war in all cases, and would no doubt blame Germany for it.


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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#63

Post by Terry Duncan » 03 Mar 2021, 13:39

glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
Since the Russians continued with their "A" variant mobilization even when at war with Germany, and while signaling diplomatically to the Austrians, it is concluded that the Russians were being deceptive and no intention other than to attack Austria once their mobilization preparations were completed. Otherwise, why didn't they switch to their G variant mobilization on 2 August?
The Russians didint follow either plan, they sort of muddled a mix of the two plans, hence the 1st and 2nd Armies entering East Prussia. Both Austrians and Russians were emphatic that the guns would not be fired unless ordered to, and as such talking was still possible. It was Germany that told Austria to go to war with Russia as the PR was far from good for Germany.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
If the Russians were lying to the Austrians after 1 August, then they were lying to them before 1 August....
That is a very strange method of reasoning. Somehow you think the German declaration of war didnt change a lot of things?
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
The British continued alliance discussions with Germany during the Boer War. Were they confused?
No. Why should they be confused? Diplomatic talks are not limited to only being possible with nations you have the best relations with, nor are they always cancelled just because of bellicose utterances from a head of state and the newspapers.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
The Russian Tzar issued a proclimation in August 1914 liberating Poland from German and Austrian rule because this was needed to stop an Austrian attack on Serbia? This is what you are saying? The Russians thought that unifying Poland under the Russian flag was a necessary precondition to stopping an Austrian attack on Serbia?
What happened after states were at war has little to do with their reasoning prior to being at war, Russia wasnt seeking to fight a war to liberate Poland, but once already at war it made sense to try to swing the Polish people in its favour. This is a very strange way for you to make a case though, as by using this reasoning Germany is rather condemned by the September Program.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
Grey's only neutrality proposal to Germany (29 July) was that if Germany remained neutral in an Austro-Russian war, that France and Britain could remain neutral also. This meant that any Germany conflict with Russia automatically brought with it the prospect of Anglo-French intervention against Germany. That was the Entente policy and not the 1839 treaty as the driving force..
Amusing to see you ignore all the ideas for a conferrence to settle the matter peacefully.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
Because Russia had been so badly defeated in 1905 that it took until 1914 before it was confident to start a world war.
Ah, so only Russia is able to start a world war? In 1914 it wasnt the Russians stating that it was 'now or never' or that war would be impossible when their Great Program completed in 1917. Who was it pushing for war because they would never get such favourable circumstances again?

glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
Russian incompetence doomed the Russian empire and ended the Romanov dynasty. By 1914 it should have been clear to Russian leaders that the time for the alliance with France was ending. The Russian Romanov dynasty's future was with the other monarchies.
Nicholas II doomed his empire by choices he made once at war. The Germans were not exactly friendly to Russia, imposing import tarrifs on Russian wheat to make it uncompetitive etc. The Dreikaiserbund had been tried, and Germany walked away because it was impossible to balance Austrian policy with Russian policy. Austria and Russia were headed for a showdown and not at all inclined to become allies at this time.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
France occupied Germany in the 1920's and failed miserably because it was the strongest power?
That the French handled it badly is not in dispute, not that they failed to extract as much as they wanted, but they did occupy parts of Germany and did ship a lot of coal back to France. France occupied German territory because they could, and Germany was powerless to stop them. Hence, France was the most powerful nation in Europe at that time.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
Britain was entering the war in all cases,
Selling a war where France has declared war on Germany, let alone where France may actually be attacking Germany would be very hard as not even the Conservative and Unionist party were agreed on support in such a case.

Long term Britain would probably try to get the powers negotiating and bring pressure to bear by blockade, obviously more favourable to its Entente partners, but direct involvement would be hard to sell to the public.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:34
and would no doubt blame Germany for it.
Psst, your anti-British bias is hanging out in the wind for all to see.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#64

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 04 Mar 2021, 14:29

glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:15
No. Grey said he would resign from cabinet around 2 August if Britain chose neutrality, and Asquith said he would go also, if Grey did. The implication was that if Grey went, that particular cabinet would cease to exist. But, Grey would still have the House backing to be the foreign minister in the next cabinet and Asquith would have the backing to be PM. When Asquith formed his next cabinet, it can be safely assumed that none of its members would be obstructionists.
Again glen was write same imagination tosh.

Nobody on cabinet was propose britain neutrality and your imagination story was not be plausible on real history. It is mostest funny.
glenn239 wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 18:15
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
02 Mar 2021, 17:08
glenn239 wrote:
01 Mar 2021, 19:47
On real history 1839.year treaty was policy which 17 mens on cabinet was agree on evening 2.august 1914.year.
The cabinet had already decided that legal obligations towards Belgium would not take precedence over matters of British policy.
On evening on 2.august 1914.year 17 mens on britain cabinet was agree on respect 1839.year treaty was be britain policy on context germany decision for to attack belgium.

Only on glen imagination story was not be policy.
No, you are wrong. Here,

https://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/1914m/ ... 76-500.htm

In no. 487 Grey the French ambassador set out the British position as of 2 August 1914. On the matter of Belgium, they were still "considering" in cabinet what their policy would be. Read the document, no. 487. Grey is 100% clear that the violation of Belgium had not been made an automatic casus belli, and in fact, would not be until it was certain that the Germans, (and not the French) would be the ones doing the violating. So, the 1839 policy was not driving British decision making.
No. I am right and you was write tosh for to mislead peoples and for to make anti-intellectual imagination story.

Grey was meet Cambon on afternoon 2.august 1914.year after morning meeting cabinet.

On evening on 2.august 1914.year mens on britain cabinet was agree on respect 1839.year treaty was be britain policy on context germany decision for to attack belgium.

Asquith was write on king on 30.july 1914.year.
Mr. Asquith, with his humble duty to Your Majesty, has the honour to report that the meeting of the Cabinet yesterday was mainly occupied with the diplomatic situation.
...
The Cabinet carefully reviewed the obligations of this country in regard to the neutrality, arising out of the two Treaties of April 1839, and action which was taken by Mr. Gladstone's Government in August 1870. It is a doubtful point how far a single guaranteeing State is bound under the Treaty of 1839 to maintain Belgian neutrality if the remainder abstain or refuse.
The Cabinet consider that the matter if it arises will be rather one of policy than of legal obligation.
Crewe was write on king on 2.august 1914.year.
Lord Crewe presents his humble duty to Your Majesty, and has the honour on behalf of the Prime Minister to submit the report of the Cabinet held at 6-30 this evening.
...
As regards Belgium, it was agreed, without any attempts to state a formula, that it should be made evident that a substantial violation of the neutrality of that country would place us in the situation contemplated as possible by Mr. Gladstone in 1870, when interference withBelgian independence was held to compel us to take action.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”