Why is it said Germany started WWI?

Originally posted by Justinian I feel compelled to address this anti-german bias flying around.    The germans, and prussians before them, were always very concerned about their enemies because if you look at germany you see it has zero natural defences.  Its not an island, it doesn't have mountains, oceans, and large rivers to protect it.  Therefore it must rely on its armies to protect it.  This is where the illusion of prussian militancy and offensive warfare comes from.  What is the best defence?  A good offence.  Look at the Schlieffen plan.  What is the ultimate goal of it?  To knock out france before the russians can mobilize.  That is the only way to defend itself, the germans CAN NOT play the defensive side in a two front war because they would have a very poor to no chance of success.  The rather delusional idea that the germans attacked and therefore its all their fault is very poor reasoning.  Look at the situation.  The germans' allies are vulnerable from russia, the germans defend their allies.  How?  The germans must attack.  They know france will come to the aid of Russia.  So they know they will be fighting on two fronts.  They must attack and defeat france before russia can react.  Their plan calls for a march through belgium into france.  The great pivoting wheel.  Simple as that.  You can't put all the blame on the germans for invading belgium, anyone with any strategic sense would think the possibility of a german advance through belgium would be high.  Unavoidable.  The british could have made all the threats war would come if germany invaded belgium it wanted to, wouldn't make the slightest difference, the germans had no options except to invade belgium if they wanted any chance of defeating france.   It is completely unfair and illogical to put all the responsibility on the germans; they could have acted this way and then the war wouldn't have happened.  That kind of reasoning is plain garbage and we all know it is.   Reading books on the subject makes it pretty obvious that the alliance system was as large a culprit as any nation.   This idea the germans were the only ones looking forward to war is, well I would be banned if I said my exact response to it, but suffice to say the germans were not looking forward to a war they knew they were unlikely to win.  Last time I checked there are quite a few photographs and videos on french troops and citizens in ecstacy over the outbreak of war, british and russian as well.  Plan anti-german bias.   I don't understand it.   In regards to the diplomatic situation, talk about a mess, all powers were frantically exchanging words trying to keep the situation contained.  This is where it shows how "enthusiastic" the different powers were for war.  (average citizen aside)  Heck, the Kaiser was sailing in the baltic during most of this.  The idea he is to blame is beyond laughable.  I recall reading that the german diplomat war in tears when he delivered the declaration of war to the russian court.  I'm not consulting sources, so I'll limit myself to stating anyone who has read anything at all on this topic, and has even the slightest ability of reading comprehension, would not be blaming the germans as the main reason for war.

Here we go. Every time this topic crops up, so do pro-German apologists.

Germany has zero natural defences? So the Rhine is a small stream? The Eifel, Hunsruck and Vogelsberg mountain ranges are not a formidable defensive barrier if properly fortified? It�s not a coincidence that before Schlieffen, the preferred German war plan in 1888 was to defend these areas against any French attack while using the bulk of the German army against Russia? The elder Von Moltke first devised such a plan, and although Waldersee his successor amended it to include a first strike in a �preventative war� [something only the Germans were fixated upon], Bismarck vetoed the idea.

This plan was still a viable option in 1914, but by then the Schlieffen Plan had become the General Staff�s preferred option, and was �set in stone�. In any potential war situation this plan would be implemented. A myopic view that did most to precipitate the tragedy that followed.

German policy at the outbreak of war as set out by the Kaiser and Bethmann-Holweg was as follows:

• The security of Germany in the East and West: to weaken France to the extent she would never regain world power status, and to push back Russia as far as possible from Germany�s borders.
• Germany was to be the centre of a mid-European economic bloc.
• The French and Belgian iron ore fields, and ownership of the factories therein, were to be ceded to Germany.
• Belfort, the Western slopes of the Vosges and the coastal strip from Dunkirk to Boulogne were to be ceded to Germany
• All remaining French Fortresses were to be demolished.
• Britain was to be excluded from trade with the continent.
• Belgium was to be a German vassal state, garrisoned by the German army. Belgian lands along the border were to be resettled by deserving NCOs and men of the German Army and the existing inhabitants were to be �cleared�. Antwerp and the remaining Belgian Channel ports were to be annexed for use as naval bases for the German Navy.

On the 8^th December 1912 the Kaiser called a War council where the idea of engineering a European war was discussed before Russia had completed the reorganisation of her Army after the debacle of the 1905 war with Japan. Is it coincidence that the matters and methods discussed, were uncannily similar to the actual events of 1914? [To be fair, the jury is still out on the significance of this meeting, although the acknowledged expert on Wilhelmite Germany, J.C.G. R�hl, tends towards the �conspiracy� view.] It therefore comes as no surprise that the Kaiser could be away yachting in 1914, all the decisions had been long in place.

Germany created the system of alliances that �encircled� her. Germany was the major behind the scenes player in the events that let up to the outbreak of the war. Germany waged an aggressive war from the outset with the aim of becoming the dominant power of Europe. Article 231 of the Versailles treaty could not be a fairer assessment on Germany�s role.

�The Allied and Associated governments affirm, and Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed on them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.�

 

 

Edited by Challenger2 - 07-Oct-2007 at 14:11

Originally posted by deadkenny Originally posted by Challenger2 .... German policy at the outbreak of war as set out by the Kaiser and Bethmann-Holweg was as follows The security of Germany in the East and West: to weaken France to the extent she would never regain world power status, and to push back Russia as far as possible from Germany�s borders. Germany was to be the centre of a mid-European economic bloc. The French and Belgian iron ore fields, and ownership of the factories therein, were to be ceded to Germany. Belfort, the Western slopes of the Vosges and the coastal strip from Dunkirk to Boulogne were to be ceded to Germany All remaining French Fortresses were to be demolished. Britain was to be excluded from trade with the continent. Belgium was to be a German vassal state, garrisoned by the German army. Belgian lands along the border were to be resettled by deserving NCOs and men of the German Army and the existing inhabitants were to be �cleared�. Antwerp and the remaining Belgian Channel ports were to be annexed for use as naval bases for the German Navy. ...   Overall all I would say that perhaps your view goes too far in to the 'other direction' of the 'German apologists', although you do make some valid points.  I would be interested in any sources you might have for the claim that the above represents the German policy at the outbreak of the war.  I realize, and have previously mentioned, that their war aims changed to include more and more punative measures, annexations etc., as the war dragged on and the costs mounted.  Further, the attitude regarding Belgium harded once Belgium decided to resist, and did so effectively.  The Germans had hoped / expected that they could 'intimidate' Belgium into effectively allowing 'free passage' through their country for the Geman armies to 'flank' the French in the 'right hook' sweep.  However, you appear to be claiming that their aim was to retain 'control' of Belgium permanently in any case.

Originally posted by deadkenny Overall all I would say that perhaps your view goes too far in to the 'other direction' of the 'German apologists', although you do make some valid points.

Really? I thought I was being quite moderate.

Originally posted by deadkenny I would be interested in any sources you might have for the claim that the above represents the German policy at the outbreak of the war.

This comes from a published internal German memorandum of September 1914. Close enough? It was reproduced in G. Corrigan's book, "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock" Gary Sheffield also covers the subject in his book "Forgotten Victory".

Originally posted by deadkenny The Germans had hoped / expected that they could 'intimidate' Belgium into effectively allowing 'free passage' through their country for the Geman armies to 'flank' the French in the 'right hook' sweep.

Got this from the on line WW1 document archive.

On the morning of August 3, 1914, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Davignon, gave the following note to the German Minister in Brussels, Herr von Below Saleske. The German army invaded Belgium on the morning of August 4, 1914.

"...This note [asking free passage] has made a deep and painful impression upon the Belgian Government. The intentions attributed to France by Germany are in contradiction to the formal declarations made to us on August 1, in the name of the French Government. Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, Belgian neutrality should be violated by France, Belgium intends to fulfil her international obligations and the Belgian army would offer the most vigorous resistance to the invader. The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870 vouch for the independence and neutrality of Belgium under the guarantee of the Powers, and notably of the Government of His Majesty the King of Prussia.

Belgium has always been faithful to her international obligations, she has carried out her duties in a spirit of loyal impartiality, and she has left nothing undone to maintain and enforce respect for her neutrality.

The attack upon her independence with which the German Government threaten her constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. No strategic interest justifies such a violation of law.

The Belgian Government, if they were to accept the proposals submitted to them, would sacrifice the honour of the nation and betray their duty towards Europe.

Conscious of the part which Belgium has played for more than eighty years in the civilisation of the world, they refuse to believe that the independence of Belgium can only be preserved at the price of the violation of her neutrality.

If this hope is disappointed the Belgian Government are firmly resolved to repel, by all the means in their power, every attack upon their rights."

If anybody has to be blamed it should be Austria-Hungary.

Originally posted by Challenger2 This comes from a published internal German memorandum of September 1914. Close enough? It was reproduced in G. Corrigan's book, "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock" Gary Sheffield also covers the subject in his book "Forgotten Victory".

That would tend to support the position that the German 'aims' were formed after the war had started.  Even that month or so is important in the context of discussing the start of the war, and whether the German intentions along these lines were clear before the war started or only afterwards, as pre-existing plans or intentions would then suggest that Germany may have started the war in order to achieve those aims.  If the aims only came to be after the start of the war, even if only 1 month into it, then there's no support for the theory that they factored into the decision to go to war in the first place.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Belgian resistance was factored into the modified Schlieffen Plan and on the 6th of November 1913 King Albert was taken aside on a visit to Berlin by Von Moltke and the Kaiser, who tried to persuade him to "throw in with the Central Powers, or else".  So the Germans could hardly bank on Belgian surprise.

Obviously inadequately factored into it though, as forces were diverted from the decisive right flank to deal with the Belgians, leaving that right flank with inadequate forces to maintain the planned line of advance - which then lead to the 'shortened' hook in front of Paris.

Originally posted by Justinian Originally posted by Challenger2 Here we go. Every time this topic crops up, so do pro-German apologists. I stated in my first sentence I intended to give a more balanced approach that was not so anti-german.  I know you say that in jest, but I still find it offensive.

As I found your post equally offensive. Let us therefore both be men and both get over it. This is a good thread which deserves scholarly debate. You've yet to convince me I'm wrong.




Edited by Challenger2 - 07-Oct-2007 at 22:16

Originally posted by Challenger2 Originally posted by Justinian Originally posted by Challenger2 Here we go. Every time this topic crops up, so do pro-German apologists. I stated in my first sentence I intended to give a more balanced approach that was not so anti-german.  I know you say that in jest, but I still find it offensive. As I found your post equally offensive. Let us therefore both be men and both get over it. This is a good thread which deserves scholarly debate. You've yet to convince me I'm wrong.

Originally posted by deadkenny   Further, the attitude regarding Belgium harded once Belgium decided to resist, and did so effectively.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by deadkenny   Further, the attitude regarding Belgium harded once Belgium decided to resist, and did so effectively.    Does that somehow excuse Germany? If a little country doesn't want to do as you tell it, then, of course, it's OK to invade and make them?

Well, no, my comment was not meant to 'excuse' the Germans for invading. Nor was it part of a claim that it was 'OK' for Germany to invade Belgium.  My comments were made in the context of discussing Germany's intentions and motivations for entering the war.  I was simply saying that, initial Germany's 'intention' was simply to 'pass through' Belgium in order to defeat France.  Plans to annex / control Belgium indefinitely only came later, as a result of Belgium's resistance etc. and Germany's failure to defeat France 'quickly'.  As the war dragged on, and the cost of fighting it mounted, Germany upped what they intended to take (i.e. the 'cost' had to be justified by the 'spoils' of victory).