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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#16

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 15 Feb 2021, 02:12

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2021, 22:43
Terry Duncan wrote:
10 Feb 2021, 20:23
. As an example, Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too.
So if the British fought to protect France and Belgium, but not Russia and Serbia, then it follows that the easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. Without this invasion route, the Germans could not break through the heavy terrain of the French fortified belt, and this would ensure that France would not be defeated. The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east, crushing Serbia in the fall of 1914 and defeating Russia in 1915 to end the war. This method had a doctrinal precedent; it is precisely the path chosen during the 1870 war when Great Britain signed two identical treaties, one with Prussia, one with France, that assured neither warring power would violate Belgium.

So then the question is, if Britain indeed had the aims you suggest, then were is the British offer to Germany as outlined above, to achieve it?
What you was write not make sense on logic.

easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium.
Why must to Britain offer neutrality on return on Germany can attack France direct? Not make logic sense on real history. Only make sense on try blame Britain on war.

The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east,

How was can leave garrison on west after fail on attack France?

On real history Germany plan was be success on France on first place. When 1870 was be precedent then Germany was not turn east before France was surrender. On real history Germany was attack on Belgium.

Only on glen imagination and not logic was be different story.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#17

Post by Sid Guttridge » 15 Feb 2021, 11:34

Hi Guys,

The German intention was to defeat France quickly through the Schlieffen Plan and then send her armies east to face the supposedly slow-mobilizing Russians.

The core of the Schlieffen Plan was to achieve surprise by advancing unexpectedly through neutral Belgium.

The British did not know about the Schlieffen Plan, and so were in no position to pre-empt it diplomatically.

Furthermore, as an advance through Belgium had been central to German war policy since 1905, it was highly unlikely that Germany would alter it at such short notice for fear of a prolonged, two-front war with France and Russia.

Cheers,

Sid.


User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#18

Post by jluetjen » 16 Feb 2021, 01:35

Sean McMeekin was mentioned in a recent thread, and I recently watched a presentation of his views on the origin of WWI. In addition to having an entertaining delivery, he provides some interesting insights which bear on the subject of this thread.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#19

Post by glenn239 » 16 Feb 2021, 19:51

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Feb 2021, 02:12
Why must to Britain offer neutrality on return on Germany can attack France direct?
You mean, that Germany can successfully attack France through the French fortified zone? You must have a very low opinion of the French army indeed to suppose the Germans stood any chance at that!
Not make logic sense on real history. Only make sense on try blame Britain on war.
How were you thinking that what Britain actually did in 1870 did not make sense on real history?
How was can leave garrison on west after fail on attack France?
Because if Belgium is neutral the French army cannot penetrate the German border either, freeing up much of the German army to move east.
On real history Germany plan was be success on France on first place. When 1870 was be precedent then Germany was not turn east before France was surrender. On real history Germany was attack on Belgium.
So you're thinking the British should not offer the 1870 policy to Berlin for fear the Germans might reject it? That makes no sense.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#20

Post by glenn239 » 16 Feb 2021, 19:56

Sid Guttridge wrote:
15 Feb 2021, 11:34
The British did not know about the Schlieffen Plan, and so were in no position to pre-empt it diplomatically.
The British were perfectly aware as early as 1911 that the German plan was to invade Belgium.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#21

Post by glenn239 » 16 Feb 2021, 20:10

Terry Duncan wrote:
14 Feb 2021, 19:04
Serbia is not really of any interest to Britain other than in her ties to Russia. Britain has joint interests with Russia, but there is no real way for Britain to be directly involved in a war between Germany and Russia, so a conflict there would likely see diplomatic pressure applied for the parties to seek a settlement.
The only actual British neutrality offer sent to Berlin in 1914 was that if Germany were to remain neutral in a Austro-Russian war, the British could themselves remain neutral. Setting aside the merits of the British proposal, this strongly suggests that Britain did not think their neutrality was likely in a German-Russian war. Otherwise, why would the British offer be shaped that way?
With regard the situation in the west, France is a critical interest for Britain and Germany cannot go to war with her without involving Britain, as it would be easy for Germany to attack Russia and defeat her, then turn west. Therefore, Germany cannot fight in the west at all. This is the answer to the many years of Germany asking 'please tell us how we can go to war with France and not see Britain involved', that Germany failed to take the hint is where her policy failed. Germany thinking 'there must be a way' does not make it so.
Again, you are suggesting that Russia is a keystone to British policy. I agree, it was. Britain could not protect Belgium by repeating the 1870 doctrine in 1914 because the Entente policy with France and Russia had superseded Splendid Isolation. If Britain neutralizes Belgium with Germany, then Germany turns on Russia and defeats her. Then, Germany could come around on France.
Would it have been possible if it had been attempted from early July? Maybe, if Germany was willing to undertake to make no territorial annexations for herself or Austria-Hungary. That would make it unlikely, but in theory it is possible should Germany offer Britain something concrete and not just lie and feign innocence.
By your own logic about the necessity of Russia in any defense of France, the conclusion becomes inescapable that any Russian intervention to protect Serbia must see Britain side with Russia. Otherwise, the possibility of a Russian defeat with France sidelined looms, and after such a defeat the Germans could come around on the French. Therefore there was nothing "concrete" Germany could successfully offer to Britain to give Austria the 3rd Balkan War. For, the moment the Russians intervened, by the cold logic you outline in describing Germany military hegemony in the wake of defeating Russia, the French and British must come in, before the German campaign got going, to prevent that from occurring.

Grey was in quite the pickle by 1914. About the best that can be said was that he tried to disguise even from the Russians the blank cheque they actually held.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#22

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 17 Feb 2021, 14:25

glenn239 wrote:
16 Feb 2021, 19:51
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Feb 2021, 02:12
Why must to Britain offer neutrality on return on Germany can attack France direct?
You mean, that Germany can successfully attack France through the French fortified zone? You must have a very low opinion of the French army indeed to suppose the Germans stood any chance at that!
Not make logic sense on real history. Only make sense on try blame Britain on war.
How were you thinking that what Britain actually did in 1870 did not make sense on real history?
How was can leave garrison on west after fail on attack France?
Because if Belgium is neutral the French army cannot penetrate the German border either, freeing up much of the German army to move east.
On real history Germany plan was be success on France on first place. When 1870 was be precedent then Germany was not turn east before France was surrender. On real history Germany was attack on Belgium.
So you're thinking the British should not offer the 1870 policy to Berlin for fear the Germans might reject it? That makes no sense.
You was just write confirm on no logic on your words. Also you was now write contradiction. What you was write now make complete no sense.

Back to start. Duncan was write : Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too.
Glen was answer : So if the British fought to protect France and Belgium, but not Russia and Serbia, then it follows that the easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. Without this invasion route, the Germans could not break through the heavy terrain of the French fortified belt, and this would ensure that France would not be defeated. The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east, crushing Serbia in the fall of 1914 and defeating Russia in 1915 to end the war. This method had a doctrinal precedent; it is precisely the path chosen during the 1870 war when Great Britain signed two identical treaties, one with Prussia, one with France, that assured neither warring power would violate Belgium.


It was make no sense on Britain to make offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. on many reasons.
1) why must to Britain make offer not Germany?
2) what is logic on Britain make offer for to get on Germany something Germany was already promise?
3) why must Britain offer neutrality? Why not just say nothing?
4) why only ask Germany not attack Belgium when not attack France was be priority?

1870.year was not be doctrinal precedent. So why you write it can to be ? Like you was write : Britain could not protect Belgium by repeating the 1870 doctrine in 1914 because the Entente policy with France and Russia had superseded Splendid Isolation 1914.year was not be 1870.year. Everything was be different. You was only write that for to make nonsense.

Peace on west Europe on 1914.year was be very simple when Germany was not attack Belgium and France. Simple. Was not be necessary on Britain to say one word.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#23

Post by Sheldrake » 17 Feb 2021, 15:24

For an explanation of how the relationship between Britain and Germany deteriorated between 1815 and 1915 I can recommend Englanders and Huns https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=englanders ... doa-p_1_11

His explanation is of a culture clash between these peoples. Why did Germany build a navy big enough to be a beatable threat to British sea power?

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#24

Post by glenn239 » 17 Feb 2021, 16:35

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Feb 2021, 14:25
You was just write...<Snip>

Much better.
1) why must to Britain make offer not Germany?
Germany did make two offers, one on 29 July and one on 1st August, but the British did not like either of them. Since this was so, it was incumbent upon the British to counteroffer if neutrality was desirable to them, because the Germans required firm British direction as to what terms the British could commit to.
2) what is logic on Britain make offer for to get on Germany something Germany was already promise?
If Britain thought that the 1839 Treaty was sufficient of its own in a Franco-German war, then why did Britain sign a conditional treaty of alliance with Prussia to guard against a French invasion of Belgium in 1870, and one with France, to guard against the Prussians doing the same? To what purpose did Britain in 1870 make these treaties, one with France, one with Prussia, if, as you claim, the 1839 treaty was allegedly enough all on its own?
3) why must Britain offer neutrality? Why not just say nothing?
Because if Britain says nothing Germany will attack France through Belgium in response to the Franco-Russian mobilizations and a world war is certain. If Britain makes a neutrality treaty with Germany based on German respect of Belgium, it could defuse the entire situation and keep the peace of Europe. Which do you think was better for Britain? A world war or a 3rd Balkans War?
4) why only ask Germany not attack Belgium when not attack France was be priority?
The British might very well ask the Germans not to declare war on France first as part of a neutrality treaty. But if France declares war, and then attacks Germany, combat along the border in both directions is to be expected as a matter of course.
1870.year was not be doctrinal precedent. So why you write it can to be ?
Doctrine means an operating procedure known to be capable achieving a specific objective. Precedent means a situation where what occurred in the past informs to a future situation of similar conditions. Both words describe the 1870 British policy with relation to 1914.
Like you was write : Britain could not protect Belgium by repeating the 1870 doctrine in 1914 because the Entente policy with France and Russia had superseded Splendid Isolation 1914.year was not be 1870.year. Everything was be different. You was only write that for to make nonsense.
Everything was different in 1914 than in 1870? Hardly Here's list of things that were exactly the same in 1870 as they were in 1914:

(1) Britain's stated continental policy was neutrality and non-alignment.
(2) Britain therefore had no formal alliance or military commitment to any continental Great Power.
(3) Britain would fight to maintain the independence and neutrality of Belgium.
(4) The 1839 Treaty was active.
Peace on west Europe on 1914.year was be very simple when Germany was not attack Belgium and France. Simple. Was not be necessary on Britain to say one word.
Which of London or Berlin were you thinking commanded the French army?

Martin_from_Valhalla
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 12 Feb 2021, 06:22
Location: Russia, Siberia

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#25

Post by Martin_from_Valhalla » 17 Feb 2021, 17:08

jluetjen wrote:
05 Feb 2021, 01:08
I saw a recent presentation on Youtube from one of the commemorative symposiums where the presenter* made a good point. Yes, we all know that Serbian activists killed Arch Duke Ferdinand. Austro-Hungary invaded Serbia after that. If you were to think of the head of state or government for your current country (or even the #2, like the Vice President) -- if they were assassinated with a clear trail leading back to a neighboring small country -- it would not be outside the bounds of reason for that to be considered grounds the declaration of war. So that is somewhat understandable on the part of Austro-Hungary. Given that Serbia was a border state with the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary seemed to be generally content with keeping them in that position as opposed to expanding the empire further south in that direction.

But why did Russia go all-in and mobilize millions of troops to back up Serbia. As the presenter said: "Major world powers do not mobilize millions of soldiers and go to war to prop up a minor client state". There must be more to it.

After reflection I tend to agree with that. Yes, the France/Germany baggage dated back to the Franco-Prussian war. But what was Russia's baggage? I think that it goes back to the often forgotten Crimean War of 1853. The origins of that war are at least as murky as the origins of WWI, but the match that started it was the Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia (then part of the Ottoman Danube). This was part of a generations long effort by Russia to get a warm-water port which was not at risk of getting blockaded like the Black Sea was. I suspect that all of the religious subject were a bit of a cover for this. But given that the Crimean War was a bit of a stale-mate/loss for the Russians, this desire for an ice-free port remained unfulfilled. Layered on top of that was a simmering resentment of the Ottoman Empire for the loss. Much like the French feelings towards the Germans after 1871.

So I think that Russia was definitely aiming to expand it's reach through the Balkans to end-run the Ottoman empire, and I think that they figured that they could bully Austro-Hungary to do it. Yeah, it's not a fully formed thought yet, but there were definitely some strong undercurrents between Russia and the Balkans/Black Sea area which really haven't been examined yet. I think that the Russians felt that the gains justified the risks of war with Austro-Hungary, and more importantly Germany. But with the Franco-Russian treaty in-hand, I think that they felt they had the risks covered.

* I don't think that this presentation was the end-all on the subject of Russia in WWI, but I think that there were some "pearls" in the presentation. This point about "mobilizing millions of soldiers for a minor client state" is one of them that I think has some merit.
That, of course, is a deep delve into underlying causes of WWI but we should bear in mind that Russian Tsar Nicholas II wanted to avoid that war till the last moment, practically bombarding his cousin Wilhelm with "peaceful" messages, though it can easily be refuted with the statement that Russian Army was rearming at that time and rearmament was due to end in 1917, hence he wanted the war to be postponed till that time. Puankare was also rearming French Army, by the way.

I think the causes of Russian involvement in WWI lay not in Crimean War but in Balcan War 1977-78. Serbia got its independence in 1878 after Berlin conference and it was possible after Russian interference, so Serbia was a really Russian 'client' state. That is why meddling with Serbian internal affairs was an affront to Russian Tsar. And an affront to a national leader at that time meant a lot, lest we forget Napoleon III whose national pride was afflicted on a daily basis.

Russian dealings with Ottoman Empire are minor and of low priority. Yes, there was a secret 'pact' made with Britain and France in 1916 that Istanbul would have been called Constantinople and its citizens would have been deported like Germans from Kornigsberg in 1946 (I'm simplifying the terms to make it clear as negotiating sides were not themsekves aware how it should have been looked like in case of positive outcome of the war). But this secret 'pact' was incurring from Russian participation in WWI. What gains would Russia get in WWI? Russia already had Finland and Poland, hardly Russian Tsar was thinking about Prussia becoming a part of his Empire. Well, maybe, the answer is pan-slavinism in Balcans. balcan states would have become more dependent on Russia in case of Antante's victory. But they were already dependent on Russia. Hence, Russia entered the war. Countries fought or colonies those times, why Russia couldn't fight for its client state which was a fartress of orthodox religion and pan-slavinism in Balcans?

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#26

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 17 Feb 2021, 17:46

glenn239 wrote:
17 Feb 2021, 16:35
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
17 Feb 2021, 14:25
You was just write...<Snip>

Much better.
1) why must to Britain make offer not Germany?
Germany did make two offers, one on 29 July and one on 1st August, but the British did not like either of them. Since this was so, it was incumbent upon the British to counteroffer if neutrality was desirable to them, because the Germans required firm British direction as to what terms the British could commit to.
2) what is logic on Britain make offer for to get on Germany something Germany was already promise?
If Britain thought that the 1839 Treaty was sufficient of its own in a Franco-German war, then why did Britain sign a conditional treaty of alliance with Prussia to guard against a French invasion of Belgium in 1870, and one with France, to guard against the Prussians doing the same? To what purpose did Britain in 1870 make these treaties, one with France, one with Prussia, if, as you claim, the 1839 treaty was allegedly enough all on its own?
3) why must Britain offer neutrality? Why not just say nothing?
Because if Britain says nothing Germany will attack France through Belgium in response to the Franco-Russian mobilizations and a world war is certain. If Britain makes a neutrality treaty with Germany based on German respect of Belgium, it could defuse the entire situation and keep the peace of Europe. Which do you think was better for Britain? A world war or a 3rd Balkans War?
4) why only ask Germany not attack Belgium when not attack France was be priority?
The British might very well ask the Germans not to declare war on France first as part of a neutrality treaty. But if France declares war, and then attacks Germany, combat along the border in both directions is to be expected as a matter of course.
1870.year was not be doctrinal precedent. So why you write it can to be ?
Doctrine means an operating procedure known to be capable achieving a specific objective. Precedent means a situation where what occurred in the past informs to a future situation of similar conditions. Both words describe the 1870 British policy with relation to 1914.
Like you was write : Britain could not protect Belgium by repeating the 1870 doctrine in 1914 because the Entente policy with France and Russia had superseded Splendid Isolation 1914.year was not be 1870.year. Everything was be different. You was only write that for to make nonsense.
Everything was different in 1914 than in 1870? Hardly Here's list of things that were exactly the same in 1870 as they were in 1914:

(1) Britain's stated continental policy was neutrality and non-alignment.
(2) Britain therefore had no formal alliance or military commitment to any continental Great Power.
(3) Britain would fight to maintain the independence and neutrality of Belgium.
(4) The 1839 Treaty was active.
Peace on west Europe on 1914.year was be very simple when Germany was not attack Belgium and France. Simple. Was not be necessary on Britain to say one word.
Which of London or Berlin were you thinking commanded the French army?
Ok. I think i understand what can to be problem.

Topic was write on serious section on forum. So i was think glen comments was be serious discussion on connection on real history. On real history glen comments not have logic or sense.

Now i can to see glen comments was be on glen imagination story.
glenn239 wrote:
16 Feb 2021, 20:10
If Britain neutralizes Belgium with Germany, then Germany turns on Russia and defeats her. Then, Germany could come around on France.
So we not discuss same topic. I discuss real history and glen discuss how Germany can to win ww1.

waldo88
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 May 2012, 06:18

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#27

Post by waldo88 » 18 Feb 2021, 02:59

The answer to this question is complicated and literally hundreds of thousands of pages have been written on it. As for the Russian motivation the following is a very general statement which I believe is correct but, as such, does not reflect the nuances and details of a lengthier answer.

Russia seems to have blundered into war. It threatened partial mobilization to pressure Austria to back down against Serbia and, when that failed, ordered full mobilization as a defensive measure. In all this it seems to have had the full backing of France (though the notes from the French visit to St Petersburg [if such notes were made], have disappeared from both French & Russian archives.

Russia’s initial decision to pressure Austria militarily was decided upon to avoid a humiliation, such as Russia felt it had experienced during the Balkan Crisis of 1912 when Austria mobilized and Russia did not.

Russian full mobilization provoked Germany’s ultimatum to Russia to cease its mobilization. This ultimatum was issued because Germany’s Schlieffen Plan depended on Russian typically slow mobilization to strike France first and knock it out before Russian mobilization could enable an attack on Germany.

While all this was going on, diplomats strived to work out compromises that would avoid war. Ultimately these efforts were overtaken by the various mobilizations triggered by Austria’s declaration of war against Serbia and the nature of Germany's Schlieffen Plan.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#28

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Feb 2021, 12:10

glenn239 wrote:
16 Feb 2021, 20:10
The only actual British neutrality offer sent to Berlin in 1914 was that if Germany were to remain neutral in a Austro-Russian war, the British could themselves remain neutral. Setting aside the merits of the British proposal, this strongly suggests that Britain did not think their neutrality was likely in a German-Russian war. Otherwise, why would the British offer be shaped that way?
You think there is some direct manner for Britain to get involved in a war between Germany and Russia?
glenn239 wrote:
16 Feb 2021, 20:10
Again, you are suggesting that Russia is a keystone to British policy. I agree, it was. Britain could not protect Belgium by repeating the 1870 doctrine in 1914 because the Entente policy with France and Russia had superseded Splendid Isolation. If Britain neutralizes Belgium with Germany, then Germany turns on Russia and defeats her. Then, Germany could come around on France.
Splendid Isolation was brought to an end primarily by the reaction of one European power, I wonder who that was? Time change and by 1914 there are many other considerations in play. Are you suggesting a single reason for Britain and Russia to go to war with Germany?
glenn239 wrote:
16 Feb 2021, 20:10
By your own logic about the necessity of Russia in any defense of France, the conclusion becomes inescapable that any Russian intervention to protect Serbia must see Britain side with Russia. Otherwise, the possibility of a Russian defeat with France sidelined looms, and after such a defeat the Germans could come around on the French. Therefore there was nothing "concrete" Germany could successfully offer to Britain to give Austria the 3rd Balkan War. For, the moment the Russians intervened, by the cold logic you outline in describing Germany military hegemony in the wake of defeating Russia, the French and British must come in, before the German campaign got going, to prevent that from occurring.
Your 'inescapable conclusions' conveniently skips over any scenario where Austria doesnt go to war. The moment Austria takes that decision it can only end in the Great European War that had been so long predicted. He covered differend sequences and all have the same result once that step has been taken. What interest does Britain or Russia have in allowing a 3rd Balkan War, indeed why not adopt the proposal from Lichnowsky that the same policy from the 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars is repeated with an ambassadors conference in London, the way that had avoided war?

Austria tried to humiliate Russia by taking advantage of the assassination to take land from Serbia and crush her politically, whilst Germany wanted to use the same excuse to try and forcibly detach Russia from the Entente with Britain and France if they failed to support Russia. Curiously the alliances held up pretty much exactly as prediced as even the non-involvement of Italy was predicted, hence urging Austria to give up anything needed to secure Italian involvement.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#29

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Feb 2021, 13:27

Hi Guys,

One wonders how it would have played out if Germany had not given the UK its invasion of Belgium as a casus belli? The cabinet was less than united on the issue before this.

Cheers,

Sid.

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

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#30

Post by glenn239 » 18 Feb 2021, 19:24

Terry Duncan wrote:
18 Feb 2021, 12:10
You think there is some direct manner for Britain to get involved in a war between Germany and Russia?
That train could always reach its station, via France.
Splendid Isolation was brought to an end primarily by the reaction of one European power, I wonder who that was? Time change and by 1914 there are many other considerations in play. Are you suggesting a single reason for Britain and Russia to go to war with Germany?
Britain continued with the illusion of Splendid Isolation, ('Splendid Illusion?') all the way up to 1914, and as Ferguson successfully argued, could have actually implemented this type of neutrality policy in 1914. So, in answer to your question, the country that ended Splendid Isolation was none other than Great Britain itself.

There was indeed an overarching, single potential reason for Britain and Russia to go to war with Germany; the elimination of the continental frontrunner.
Your 'inescapable conclusions' conveniently skips over any scenario where Austria doesnt go to war. The moment Austria takes that decision it can only end in the Great European War that had been so long predicted.
If Russia had limited itself to measures short of partial or general mobilizations, Austria's 3rd Balkans War would have run its course and ended perhaps even as quickly as in a few months. What would it have looked like? Perhaps a bit like Stalin's war on Finland in 1939. Whatever the outcome, it is doubtful the Austrians would emerge stronger.
What interest does Britain or Russia have in allowing a 3rd Balkan War, indeed why not adopt the proposal from Lichnowsky that the same policy from the 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars is repeated with an ambassadors conference in London, the way that had avoided war?
Well, for Britain the answer was that it's continental doctrine was supporting the weak against the strong, and Austria was the weaker party. For Russia, the answer is that the Tzar probably, I'm guessing, wanted to avoid he and his entire family being brutally murdered by revolutionaries and his dynasty exterminated from history thereby.

So, uppsies in both capitols to let the 3rd Balkans War fizzle out all of its own.
Austria tried to humiliate Russia by taking advantage of the assassination to take land from Serbia and crush her politically, whilst Germany wanted to use the same excuse to try and forcibly detach Russia from the Entente with Britain and France if they failed to support Russia. Curiously the alliances held up pretty much exactly as prediced as even the non-involvement of Italy was predicted, hence urging Austria to give up anything needed to secure Italian involvement.
Hmmn. Sounds like reasoning why Belgium meant little to the overall trajectory of British intervention, which by your description was clearly hinging upon Russia's continued participation in the Entente.
Last edited by glenn239 on 18 Feb 2021, 19:33, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”