WWI Germany

Originally posted by gcle2003 Germany turned it into a pan-European and subsequently global conflict through blatant aggression and total disregard for international law and treaty obligations.

Originally posted by gcle2003   Russia and Germany both mobilised. Germany demanded Russia stop mobilising, and when they refused, declare war on August 1. That was their first optional choice.   The next day, Germany invaded and occupied Luxembourg, breaking all sorts of treaties and guarantees in the process. Second optional choice.   On that same day, Germany issued an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding free passage for German armies. The Belgians, whose neutrality had been guaranteed by Germany, refused. (At this point the Kaiser is still privately expressing the hope that Britain would not get involved, much like Hitler in 1939.) That was the third optional choice.   On August 3 Germany declared war on France, and on the following day invaded Belgium. Fourth and fifth optional choices.   To the surprise of most Germans, including the Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg, Britain declared war over the Belgian invasion, under its guarantees in the treaty of 1839, the treaty that Hollweg famously dismissed as 'a mere scrap of paper' when he was asking the leaving British ambassador why on earth Britain took it seriously.

Better? (the day you'll write French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic as well as I write English, we'll speak over it).

Best

Maharbbal

Originally posted by Onkel_Wowa Sorry, did I mention any race? What means "racial prejudism"? The conspiracy theory is neither new, nor unknown. If it is not allowed to discuss it on the forum, i obey. May be You explain us the reasons for WW! using the "realities"?

There has never been any evidence for the "jewish conspiracy" (lets call it by its name) and I'd be surprised if any ever shows up. Please remember that in august and september 1914 the stock markets in London collapsed.

WWI is not my cup of tea. That said here are a few ideas:
1) Logic of conflict.
2) Nationalism and hatred and fear (French against German, German against Russians).
3) Heavily endebted nations couldn't affored an undeclared war any more (see the Japanese debt).
4) Rent-seeking elites.
5) Bad luck.

And many others


Edited by Maharbbal - 01-Mar-2007 at 19:53

Originally posted by Decebal Originally posted by pekau I think British did not want competition in the Middle East. She could not allow the Red Sea, Suez Canal. Oil was not a huge issue in WWI, because much of the oil fields were still unknown, or very little to the Western world. It was not until WWII where Middle East were known as the land of oil...   Not quite. The Mosul oil-fields had been opened by that time, and control of oil was becoming critical for both Germany and Britain, because of the dreadnought race. While WW1 was primarily a land war, the rivalry between Germany and Britain which led to it was very much sea-oriented.

Originally posted by pekau I think British did not want competition in the Middle East. She could not allow the Red Sea, Suez Canal. Oil was not a huge issue in WWI, because much of the oil fields were still unknown, or very little to the Western world. It was not until WWII where Middle East were known as the land of oil...

The bankers family of Rothschild's is not mentioned. But they did control the world. The local "governments" did what they wanted. The WW1 was the result of general effort of national intelligence services under Rothschild's rule.

I think British did not want competition in the Middle East. She could not allow the Red Sea, Suez Canal. Oil was not a huge issue in WWI, because much of the oil fields were still unknown, or very little to the Western world. It was not until WWII where Middle East were known as the land of oil...

Originally posted by gcle2003     That's pretty twisted. The succession to the English throne goes back much father than Wilhelm's claims. The Hohenzollerns were relative upstarts anyway*, and his Imperial title only dates from 1871.   Moreover, the whole rationale of the Hanoverian succession was that George I was the legitimate heir of the English queen (once you ruled out the Roman Catholics) and was so recognised. As such, Hanover belonged to the King of England, not the other way around.

you are way off. i can only speak about George III but he was more like Kurf�rst of Hannover (note the two 'n') ruling from London. just like the Plantagenet kings were Norman Dukes ruling from England, or Peter III ruling Russia as if it was Holstein-Gottorp, the very reason he got "replaced". this is a very common theme in history. in all events the ruler of Hannover "owned" England et al, not the other way round as you claimed. if you don't agree, you should ask the English diet to adopt another law of sucession so your beloved English crown doesn't get owned by foreigners...


as for your second post, you conveniently did not mention Germanys alliance with Austria-Hungary, which would be activated in case of Russian intervention. Russia on the otehr hand had an alliance with France, that encircled Germany just like the France-Austria-Russia alliance encircled Prussia and required a preemptive strike by Frederick into Saxony from which the defense of Prussia could be organised (as had happened). back to ww1, Germanies doctrine recuired a similar move and the invasion of Belgium to organize its own defense. Britain didn't exactly had a real alliance with Belgium but a guarantee dating back 80 years or so...
so in closing, Germany had more of a reason and "right" to involve in this conflict than Britain, and was obvioulsy drawn into war by Austria-Hungary.