OT - alternative history

[mind_messing]

So in the same way that the French people took defeat in 1870 as you would expect, so the Germans felt anger, betrayal etc etc

"As you would expect" being the overthrow of the government, popular discontent and the emergence of revolutionary groups like the Paris Commune.

So basically the same as Germany in 1918 then, don't you agree?

even though it was their country that did more than any other to start WWI, and it was Germany that declared war on France.

That's a bold claim there, Fritz Fischer. Quite a popular one as well, but it's not quite true.

The Germans and Russians need to jointly bear the brunt of the blame. In essence, they turned what would have been a minor regional conflict (in a region where wars had been quite common) into a world war.

The Germans raised the stakes with the "blank cheque", but it was the Russians who mobilized first, forcing Germany to either declare war or throw away twenty odd years of military planning and preparation. Russian mobilization was the assurance of a world war in Europe.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

So in the same way that the French people took defeat in 1870 as you would expect, so the Germans felt anger, betrayal etc etc

"As you would expect" being the overthrow of the government, popular discontent and the emergence of revolutionary groups like the Paris Commune.

So basically the same as Germany in 1918 then, don't you agree?

even though it was their country that did more than any other to start WWI, and it was Germany that declared war on France.

That's a bold claim there, Fritz Fischer. Quite a popular one as well, but it's not quite true.

The Germans and Russians need to jointly bear the brunt of the blame. In essence, they turned what would have been a minor regional conflict (in a region where wars had been quite common) into a world war.

The Germans raised the stakes with the "blank cheque", but it was the Russians who mobilized first, forcing Germany to either declare war or throw away twenty odd years of military planning and preparation. Russian mobilization was the assurance of a world war in Europe.

Warspite1

Re the first point, yes of course. Human nature is human nature - doesn't matter if you are German, French or Outer Mongolian.

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

[Symon]

The ridiculousness of trying to make sense of things has always bent me a bit. This was written in the 60s and is as funny, and relevant, now as it was then.

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles

Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII... [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII... [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

Warspite1

Orm was talking about the war in 1870 [;)]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

As for invading Germany, it seemed to me that all the war of 1870 was fought on French territory, and that the first battles happened after the German army crossed the Rhine into French territory...

Francois

Actually the French invaded first, and took Saarbrucken. That was as far as it went though, and the beating at Spicheren soon had them reeling back across the border. A fascinating conflict, actually - highly recommend Michael Howard's "The Franco-Prussian War". There might be more recent scholarship, but he nailed it.

It's hard to imagine for most, but at the time France was perceived almost as we now think of Germany in the early-to-mid 1900's - the bully of Europe who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The world had roughly the same expectations for Prussia in this war as it did for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (another fascinating conflict that's well worth reading up on).

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: Kull
Actually the French invaded first, and took Saarbrucken.

I would disagree with this. Actually, I think Sarrebruck proves the contrary.

War had been declared on the 19th of July, and by the beginning of August, both sides were quietly sitting on their side of the border. The Germans had an invasion plan, but the French generals, feeling (rightly) that they fought at a disadvantage, were planning for a defensive war. As public opinon seemed worried by the lack of action, Napoleon ordered an offensive, which the generals resisted.

Sarrebruck was the result : the French sent a few battalions, the Prussians retreated in order, casualties were minimal, but both propaganda machines played it to the hilt: great victory for the French, invasion stopped cold for the Prussians. But the "battle" was, at best, an inconclusive skirmish.

ORIGINAL: Kull
It's hard to imagine for most, but at the time France was perceived almost as we now think of Germany in the early-to-mid 1900's - the bully of Europe who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The world had roughly the same expectations for Prussia in this war as it did for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

In 1870, the last time the French army had been engaged was in Mexico, and it hadn't been a success.

In Europe, France was perceived as weak. Prussia, on the other hand, had defeated Autria in Sadowa a few years before, and no one had doubts about their military prowess (the only question in 1870, was whether the southern german states would follow Prussia, and this was the purpose of the Ems dispatch).

Francois

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII... [;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

Warspite1

Orm was talking about the war in 1870 [;)]

Gee, thanks.

He could have talked about the 2nd Boer War and it hadn´t made a difference.

For you, in plain text, the underlying message of the post was:
Assigning aggressor roles in hindsight by looking at who declared war on whom (or who invaded whom) might lead to false conclusions throughout history.

Better?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: LoBaron




England declared war on Germany in WWII... [;)]

Warspite1

Orm was talking about the war in 1870 [;)]

Gee, thanks.

He could have talked about the 2nd Boer War and it hadn´t made a difference.

For you, in plain text, the underlying message of the post was:
Assigning aggressor roles in hindsight by looking at who declared war on whom (or who invaded whom) might lead to false conclusions throughout history.

Better?

warspite1

Wow. Nice sarcasm. I made a mistake in terms in terms of what I thought you meant - that was all. The smiley I thought showed my intention here.

As you all love to tell me, this forum is so mature, so friendly. Yes, as evidenced by this narky response LoBaron - real friendly, just like Symon's post earlier. So thanks for that [8|].

[LoBaron]

You´re right, it was too snarky a response. No offense.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
As you all love to tell me, this forum is so mature

But this is complete news to me. Senile, maybe. But mature? [:'(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You´re right, it was too snarky a response. No offense.

warspite1

Okay thanks - none taken.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: Kull
Actually the French invaded first, and took Saarbrucken.

I would disagree with this. Actually, I think Sarrebruck proves the contrary.

War had been declared on the 19th of July, and by the beginning of August, both sides were quietly sitting on their side of the border. The Germans had an invasion plan, but the French generals, feeling (rightly) that they fought at a disadvantage, were planning for a defensive war. As public opinon seemed worried by the lack of action, Napoleon ordered an offensive, which the generals resisted.

Sarrebruck was the result : the French sent a few battalions, the Prussians retreated in order, casualties were minimal, but both propaganda machines played it to the hilt: great victory for the French, invasion stopped cold for the Prussians. But the "battle" was, at best, an inconclusive skirmish.

ORIGINAL: Kull
It's hard to imagine for most, but at the time France was perceived almost as we now think of Germany in the early-to-mid 1900's - the bully of Europe who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The world had roughly the same expectations for Prussia in this war as it did for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

In 1870, the last time the French army had been engaged was in Mexico, and it hadn't been a success.

In Europe, France was perceived as weak. Prussia, on the other hand, had defeated Autria in Sadowa a few years before, and no one had doubts about their military prowess (the only question in 1870, was whether the southern german states would follow Prussia, and this was the purpose of the Ems dispatch).

Francois

To be clear, your premise is that Germany did NOT invade first. And to prove that, you AGREE with my post (and with actual history), and cite the French Invasion of the Saar, which was the opening gambit in the war. On what planet is a French invasion NOT a French invasion?

We aren't talking about whether it was successful or smart, or handled properly. Just that it was first. And it was French.

And we'll probably have to agree to disagree on the "world perception" of French military power....that would likely turn into a dueling battle of competing historians. I'll just say that in hindsight, Prussia-Austria is the rough equivalent of the Sino-Japanese War. In each case the lessons were clear to those who cared to digest them, but few did.

Again, France was seen as the powerhouse of continental Europe. The failure of the Mexican Adventure had as much impact on European perceptions of French military power as the loss of Haiti did during Napoleon's era - i.e. of no consequence in the only arena that mattered. The French had won the Crimean War against Russia in the mid '50s and beat the same Austrians the Prussians did in Italy in 1859. These guys were NOT cowering in fear of Prussia. They were insulted and they were HAPPY to declare war, and fully expected that France would win again, as always.

And the idea that France planned a "defensive campaign" is laughable. The French military was fully versed in the Napoleonic belief in the offensive, and it was embedded in their military ethos all the way through the First World War when it finally bled out in the trenches.

l'audace l'audace toujours l'audace!

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: Kull
On what planet is a French invasion NOT a French invasion?

On what planet does a reconnaissance in force (this is how the operation is called in the french orders), involving a handful of battalions, killing 10 soldiers on each side, and stopping once the said battalions have advanced a few kilometers, while the rest of the army sits still on the border, qualify as an "invasion"?

The whole army was sitting on the border, had been doing so for a couple of weeks, and there were no plans to invade Germany.

ORIGINAL: Kull
These guys were NOT cowering in fear of Prussia. They were insulted and they were HAPPY to declare war, and fully expected that France would win again, as always.

Napoleon tried to avoid war with Prussia throughout the 1860s, and even tried to back from a declaration in July, once the actual story behind the Ems dispatch was understood. On the Republican side, Thiers declared, on the 15th of July, to the military leaders "you are not ready" (to which Le Bœuf replied "il ne manque pas un bouton de guêtre). And there had been voices in the military hierarchy that had warned against the strength of Prussia, before and even more after Sadowa. Public opinion wanted war, this is certain, but the idea that it would be an easy one wasn't there (this wasn't 1914).

ORIGINAL: Kull
And the idea that France planned a "defensive campaign" is laughable. The French military was fully versed in the Napoleonic belief in the offensive, and it was embedded in their military ethos all the way through the First World War when it finally bled out in the trenches.

Laugh if you will, but French doctrine, in 1870, in 1914 and again in 1940, always called for defending on the border. I believe the lessons the military leaders thought they had learnt were those of 1792 (Valmy and the like), and the campaign of France in 1814, where Napoleon had fared relatively well (given the odds). I think it is also ingrained in the idea that the French Army was a conscription army, defending "la patrie en danger".

This doesn't preclude, élan, offensive tactics, or use of massed infantry. It just means the French generals wanted to fight on their turf, over internal lines, etc.

Francois

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Wow. Nice sarcasm. I made a mistake in terms in terms of what I thought you meant - that was all. The smiley I thought showed my intention here.

As you all love to tell me, this forum is so mature, so friendly. Yes, as evidenced by this narky response LoBaron - real friendly, just like Symon's post earlier. So thanks for that [8|].

Nobody’s dissing you, warspite1. It’s not you. As in all good debates, things get “warm”, but it’s no reflection on the persona. If you have been offended, I apologize for that.

But you needn’t have been. We are friendly. But we also have thoughts and beliefs that we hew to. We may take cynical, sarcastic, snarky, exception to a “position”, but that is normal. We do not take exception to a persona for having that position.

Taking a position on complex or controversial subject matter requires a thicker than usual skin.

Ciao. John

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Kull
On what planet is a French invasion NOT a French invasion?

On planet Earth, my friend, since the 16th century.

There’s analysts and there’s analysts. You have a gazillion of them with a gazillion opinions. This is mine, for what it’s worth.

France never had a conceptual national offensive strategy; except for the Directory and Empire. France knew its boundaries and was comfortable within them. There was no need to invade Germany, capture Berlin, and dictate a peace saying … what?

France was comfy within its milieu. It lusted for Alsace, and Loraine, and what she perceived as her natural boundaries on the Rhine. So, during her wars, she always wanted to push to the Rhine frontier.

It’s a mistake to confuse a nation’s military tactical/operational style with its conceptual national offensive strategy. I agree with Francois for the most part.

Ciao. John

[Kull]

France declared war on Germany over the wording of a telegram...and was the first to send soldiers across the border into the other nation. The Prussians goaded you, and you declared war over a triviality. And then invaded Germany. First.

If Mexico sends "a few battalions" into the US and kills a few dozen US troops, I don't think the headlines (or the politicians and the public) will use the words, "reconnaissance in force". [8|]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

Here's a little something that might interest you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z26bjxs

The First World War became the First World War (and not the Third Balkans War) when the Russians decided to order mobilization. After that point, the clock starts counting down the hours Germany has to ensure it's security and what would otherwise have been a limited regional conflict in the Balkans turns into a European-wide bloodbath as Russian mobilization sets off the various triggers to bring the other great powers into the war.

The "blank cheque" was not an assurance of war, as Russian military involvement was by no means a certainty. Russia had, after all, made a point of not intervening militarily in the past two wars in the Balkans, both of which threatened Russian interests.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

Here's a little something that might interest you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z26bjxs

The First World War became the First World War (and not the Third Balkans War) when the Russians decided to order mobilization. After that point, the clock starts counting down the hours Germany has to ensure it's security and what would otherwise have been a limited regional conflict in the Balkans turns into a European-wide bloodbath as Russian mobilization sets off the various triggers to bring the other great powers into the war.

The "blank cheque" was not an assurance of war, as Russian military involvement was by no means a certainty. Russia had, after all, made a point of not intervening militarily in the past two wars in the Balkans, both of which threatened Russian interests.

warspite1

No blank cheque = no war (Balkan or otherwise) and so Russia's actions become irrelevant.

Germany wanted to support her ailing ally, that's perfectly understandable. However, when Austria-Hungary's ultimatum (that was designed to be rejected and could only have been sent with the blank cheque in her pocket) was accepted on all bar one point why, if Germany really did not want general war, did she not simply order AH to accept, what was, Serbia's abject humiliation. Germany could and should of course have limited the cheque in the first place, but having failed to do so she could, even then, have told AH that "we do not want this getting out of hand, failure to accept means you are on your own". Acceptance would more than have satisfied AH honour and revenged the death of their heir to the throne.

And what of Austria-Hungary's actions? Knowing that proceeding to war with Serbia (rather than just simply accepting her humiliation) would lead to a Europe wide conflagration, her behaviour was rather cavalier no?

BTW Did you watch that excellent 3-part drama from the BBC, 37-days? Excellent acting (a fine cast) and scripted. Most enjoyable and thoroughly recommended.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Kull

France declared war on Germany over the wording of a telegram...and was the first to send soldiers across the border into the other nation. The Prussians goaded you, and you declared war over a triviality. And then invaded Germany. First.

I agree with you that there are situations where the definition of the term 'invasion' lies in the eye of the beholder.

If Mexico sends "a few battalions" into the US and kills a few dozen US troops, I don't think the headlines (or the politicians and the public) will use the words, "reconnaissance in force". [8|]

Just a general remark, as this has happened a lot in this thread already. An attempt to explain, condemn, or justify, historical events with todays western world moral and logic standards will usually end up in failure to understand.