Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/30/2017 8:54:10 PM   
Orm


Posts: 14562
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: online
Very well said. But at the same time isn't it simplistic to put so much blame on Germany for that "blank cheque"?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/30/2017 9:15:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Very well said. But at the same time isn't it simplistic to put so much blame on Germany for that "blank cheque"?
warspite1

I give the bulk of the blame to Germany because without that blank cheque Austria-Hungary simply cannot declare war on Serbia - the problem remains localised. Of course it would be nice to think that in an ideal world the Kaiser, the King and the Czar can all get together and decide on appropriate action to be taken against what was state sponsored terrorism by the Serbs. Let's be honest, whatever one may feel about A-H, they had bloody good reason to be angry and those three - as monarchs - would likely be a tad alarmed at that development.

Was the blank cheque issued with a view to bringing on a general war? Of that I am not certain - but at best it was damn irresponsible - and at worst it was issued with just that goal.

I don't believe that any of the major powers were completely blameless, but Germany - whether the Kaiser or the General Staff or both - take the lion's share.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/30/2017 9:16:26 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 32
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/30/2017 9:32:52 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 22735
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: online
Detective: (Michael Palin) What's all this then, Amen!

M: Are you the church police?

All the police officers: (in unison) Ho, Yes!

M: There's another dead bishop on the landing, vicar sargeant!

Detective: Uh, Detective Parson, madam. I see... suffrican, or diocisian?

M: 'Ow should I know?

D: It's tatooed on the back o' their neck. (spying the tart) 'Ere, is that rat tart?

M: yes.

D: Disgusting! Right! Men, the chase is on! Now we should all kneel!

(they all kneel)

All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo croaked Leicester!

(thunder)

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.

_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 33
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/30/2017 10:01:26 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 3208
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Detective: (Michael Palin) What's all this then, Amen!

M: Are you the church police?

All the police officers: (in unison) Ho, Yes!

M: There's another dead bishop on the landing, vicar sargeant!

Detective: Uh, Detective Parson, madam. I see... suffrican, or diocisian?

M: 'Ow should I know?

D: It's tatooed on the back o' their neck. (spying the tart) 'Ere, is that rat tart?

M: yes.

D: Disgusting! Right! Men, the chase is on! Now we should all kneel!

(they all kneel)

All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo croaked Leicester!

(thunder)

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 34
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/30/2017 10:26:15 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.
warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.



Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.
warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....


It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 35
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 2:16:09 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1644
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
Funny how France seems to be going blameless. Consider this: The seeds of WWI were sown way before in France's 2nd Empire (Emile Ollivier specifically). France asked for war, lost, then in the 3rd Republic bemoaned the loss of a tiny territory which mostly had a majority German people in it (the northern tip had majority French, but was of strategic importance in case of another war). The foreign policy of France's 3rd Republic: its policy to isolate Germany by use of various treaties (Franco-Russian Alliance, Entante Cordiale, and finally the Triple Entente).

Others were also at fault (Germany/Kaiser for being arrogant perhaps, and also not adhering to Bismarck's #1 foreign policy rule; Britain for its jealousy of the shiny new German fleet/rapid naval expansion; and so on). The catalyst was the assassination...but French foreign policy and their great desire for another war for me was the biggest factor.


< Message edited by Jagdtiger14 -- 8/31/2017 2:19:28 AM >


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 36
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 4:39:43 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.
warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.



Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.
warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....


It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

warspite1

Removing most of my first paragraph maybe helps make the point you want to make, but it also removes much of the point I was making. There was nothing simple about the events of July 1914 - I don't think it correct to break down those tumultuous events into one sentence.

Get any ten historians together and you are likely to get 8 different culprits or combination of culprits for WWI and the fact is, we will never ever know now who/what exactly was the cause of the war. Much evidence has been lost/destroyed plus maybe as much again was in the hearts and minds of the individuals there at the time - and they ain't sayin' or their writings after the event contain a more rose-tinted version....

When the actual cause of the war is unknown, arguing about what was/wasn't a catalyst/trigger is maybe a little superfluous but hey, its a fun exercise for those of us that get a buzz from history. so in a nutshell:

- You're happy to say the assassination started the war because it sucked in other nations, although one could ask what was it contained within the treaty with AH that meant that Germany had to take the action it did?

- I say that is too simplistic and the assassination was merely a catalyst that began a process; a process that did not have to end in war without direction (intended or otherwise) from party (or parties) elsewhere.

Fine, we'll agree to disagree .


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/31/2017 6:43:08 AM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 37
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 7:34:27 AM   
loki100


Posts: 4230
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.



True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.


_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 38
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 8:03:31 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.



True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.

warspite1

Maybe down-playing Ferdinand's importance to Austria-Hungary a tad given that he was heir to the throne!


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/31/2017 8:11:56 AM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 39
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 8:19:14 AM   
loki100


Posts: 4230
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.



True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.

warspite1

Maybe down-playing Ferdinand's importance to Austria-Hungary a tad given that he was heir to the throne!



well ... ok. maybe a wee bit of hyperbole there . But other similar assasinations did manage to kill off actual rulers and its not as Ferdinand was hugely popular among the rest of the Hapsburgs

_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 40
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 9:28:30 AM   
wodin


Posts: 9266
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
As the case in pretty much every debateable point in history you'll find there is never one easy answer and usually you'll also find many contributing factors that will all add up to why something happened the way it did.

Books, many books have been written to answer this question. SSO really it would be very difficult to answer it in full in a forum post. However you'll find fear of some sort or another is why conflicts and Wars happen oh and splash in money, pride, status and egos.

< Message edited by wodin -- 8/31/2017 9:31:28 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 41
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 12:02:35 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.
warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.



Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.
warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....


It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

warspite1

Removing most of my first paragraph maybe helps make the point you want to make....


My point was only that there were no further diplomatic crisis after the assassination of AH's archduke and its subsequent declaration of war against Serbia after the later refused to accept every ultimatum issued by the offended empire.

And surely anyone can scroll up and read the rest of your points in your original post.

What started World War I? An assassination that lit a tinderbox of alliances based on past grievances and fears.

Why does it have to be more complicated?




_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 42
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 12:10:52 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

As the case in pretty much every debateable point in history you'll find there is never one easy answer and usually you'll also find many contributing factors that will all add up to why something happened the way it did....


There was an entire continent of contributing factors that were waiting to be set off by just one rogue act of a single state.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 43
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 1:47:01 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 843
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Very well said. But at the same time isn't it simplistic to put so much blame on Germany for that "blank cheque"?

YES.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 44
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 5:54:42 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.
warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.



Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.
warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....


It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

warspite1

Removing most of my first paragraph maybe helps make the point you want to make....


My point was only that there were no further diplomatic crisis after the assassination of AH's archduke and its subsequent declaration of war against Serbia after the later refused to accept every ultimatum issued by the offended empire.

And surely anyone can scroll up and read the rest of your points in your original post.

What started World War I? An assassination that lit a tinderbox of alliances based on past grievances and fears.

Why does it have to be more complicated?

warspite1

Because that's the situation that presented the great powers after the shooting - a complicated one. One where nothing was pre-ordained, nothing was set in stone in terms of unbreakable treaty obligations and clauses. Leaders, politicians, diplomats, the military - they all had to make decisions. They had options.


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 45
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 8/31/2017 10:22:30 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.
warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.



Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.
warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....


It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

warspite1

Removing most of my first paragraph maybe helps make the point you want to make....


My point was only that there were no further diplomatic crisis after the assassination of AH's archduke and its subsequent declaration of war against Serbia after the later refused to accept every ultimatum issued by the offended empire.

And surely anyone can scroll up and read the rest of your points in your original post.

What started World War I? An assassination that lit a tinderbox of alliances based on past grievances and fears.

Why does it have to be more complicated?

warspite1

Because that's the situation that presented the great powers after the shooting - a complicated one. One where nothing was pre-ordained, nothing was set in stone in terms of unbreakable treaty obligations and clauses. Leaders, politicians, diplomats, the military - they all had to make decisions. They had options.



Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 46
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 5:47:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/1/2017 6:24:18 AM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 47
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 9:25:23 AM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: online
"Now assured of Germany's backing, Berchtold's next problem is so to draft the ultimatum to Serbia that it will be unacceptable. This takes some thought and on July 10th Berchtold confesses to Tschirschky that he is still considering 'what demands could be put that it would be wholly impossible to accept'.

.. 'a diplomatic success would be valuless'..

But, two minutes before the ultimatum expired the Serbian reply was handed to the Austrian ambassador. Without waiting to read it, he broke off relations and caught the train from Belgrade, in accordance with his instructions.

"

From Liddell Hart's History of the First World War.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 48
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 11:19:12 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?



_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 49
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 11:26:46 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6765
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Get any ten historians together and you are likely to get 8 different culprits or combination of culprits for WWI a



You mean like shown in this post over at BBC?

I have heard many reasons for WWI over the years, back when I went to school, the consensus was that this was a wanted war, one they expected would settle the European map once and for all. This view was not the accepted norm when I went to university the last time, so the views on where the blame lies shifts with time.

I feel like Baldrick...

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 50
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 12:22:32 PM   
loki100


Posts: 4230
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


....

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?




I'm sorry but in terms of analysing complex real world chains around unique (or near unique) events this approach is deeply flawed. Its like the old medieval logic of associating comets with bad events. Ie a bad event happens (which in that era was common) and oh yes there was a comet sometime last year.

At its simplest you are confusing correlation with causation and by your approach fail to explain how Europe has only had 3 major multi-power wars since 1789 to date. If a small state tweaking the nose of a powerful neighbour (or in this case elements within that state) was sufficient cause then the history of the last 2 centuries would have been very different?


_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 51
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 3:00:19 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


....

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?




I'm sorry but in terms of analysing complex real world chains around unique (or near unique) events this approach is deeply flawed. Its like the old medieval logic of associating comets with bad events. Ie a bad event happens (which in that era was common) and oh yes there was a comet sometime last year.

At its simplest you are confusing correlation with causation....



As if the state sanctioned assassination of a rival states' heir to its throne has no correlation whatsoever with a declaration of war between them?

And how exactly is the assassination of a states' designated successor like a comet? It wasn't as if Archduke Ferdinand was hit in the head by a meteorite!


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 52
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 3:35:20 PM   
loki100


Posts: 4230
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


....

catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?




I'm sorry but in terms of analysing complex real world chains around unique (or near unique) events this approach is deeply flawed. Its like the old medieval logic of associating comets with bad events. Ie a bad event happens (which in that era was common) and oh yes there was a comet sometime last year.

At its simplest you are confusing correlation with causation....



As if the state sanctioned assassination of a rival states' heir to its throne has no correlation whatsoever with a declaration of war between them?

And how exactly is the assassination of a states' designated successor like a comet? It wasn't as if Archduke Ferdinand was hit in the head by a meteorite!



ok, leave it there ...

_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 53
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 3:52:05 PM   
Drakken


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

"Now assured of Germany's backing, Berchtold's next problem is so to draft the ultimatum to Serbia that it will be unacceptable. This takes some thought and on July 10th Berchtold confesses to Tschirschky that he is still considering 'what demands could be put that it would be wholly impossible to accept'.

.. 'a diplomatic success would be valuless'..

But, two minutes before the ultimatum expired the Serbian reply was handed to the Austrian ambassador. Without waiting to read it, he broke off relations and caught the train from Belgrade, in accordance with his instructions.

"

From Liddell Hart's History of the First World War.




Given Liddell Hart's reputation for putting into Wehrmacht officers' mouth that the doctrine of armoured warfare, and tangentially the concept of Blitzkrieg in fact was "invented" by the British in 1920s, to the point of badgering them into saying so, I would be a little bit skeptical of this particular quote from him. Littell Hart has written his HOTFWW when it was accepted by everyone that Germany was to blame, and that while the Versailles Treaty was a harsh vindication of that it was well-deserved.

Plus, let's not kid ourselves: The Serbian did not accept the ultimatum. They accepted all the points except allowing Austrian officers to investigate the assassination in Serbia, and Vienna made it clear it was an all-or-nothing proposition. No negociation, no maybe. Take it or we are at war. Even if Liddell Hart said was true, it is most probable that when handing their Serbian reply the official said something like "We accept everything your government asks, except the Austrian policemen part. But we are open to negociate this". This made the point moot. No need to read the document, because to Vienna this was tantamount to a rejected ultimatum anyway.

quote:

Instructions were given to the Austrian Minister in Belgrade, Baron von Gieslingen, whereby if "no unconditionally positive answer" is received by the Serbian government within "the 48-hour deadline" of the ultimatum ("as measured from the day and hour of your announcing it"), the Minister should proceed to leave the Austro-Hungarian Embassy of Belgrade together with all its personnel.[98]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbian_uncertainty


< Message edited by Drakken -- 9/1/2017 4:06:50 PM >

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 54
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:22:09 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?


warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/1/2017 5:07:38 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 55
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:33:55 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1797
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Actually you're all wrong My family caused WWI. Had an old photo of a relative who was a midwife holding the baby that had been delivered she was caring for who would become Kaiser Wilhelm. Even have a medal from the German government to her for "TREUE DIENSTE" (True Service)

Had she not been there for the Kaiser it is possible WWI would never had happened. Come to think of it, maybe WWII then wouldn't have happened. Yes folks a family to be proud of for sure.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 56
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:36:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Actually you're all wrong My family caused WWI. Had an old photo of a relative who was a midwife holding the baby that had been delivered she was caring for who would become Kaiser Wilhelm. Even have a medal from the German government to her for "TREUE DIENSTE" (True Service)

Had she not been there for the Kaiser it is possible WWI would never had happened. Come to think of it, maybe WWII then wouldn't have happened. Yes folks a family to be proud of for sure.
warspite1

Did she mangle his arm on the 'way out' on purpose?


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 57
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:43:38 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1797
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Actually you're all wrong My family caused WWI. Had an old photo of a relative who was a midwife holding the baby that had been delivered she was caring for who would become Kaiser Wilhelm. Even have a medal from the German government to her for "TREUE DIENSTE" (True Service)

Had she not been there for the Kaiser it is possible WWI would never had happened. Come to think of it, maybe WWII then wouldn't have happened. Yes folks a family to be proud of for sure.
warspite1

Did she mangle his arm on the 'way out' on purpose?



Sounds like something the family might do. I do have the medal but wouldn't be able to come up with her name. My last name is French but may mothers maiden name, and most grandparents, great grandparents and back had German names. Just thought it would be fun to add my possible/improbable reasons to the thread for the fun of it.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 58
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:45:25 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

"Now assured of Germany's backing, Berchtold's next problem is so to draft the ultimatum to Serbia that it will be unacceptable. This takes some thought and on July 10th Berchtold confesses to Tschirschky that he is still considering 'what demands could be put that it would be wholly impossible to accept'.

.. 'a diplomatic success would be valuless'..

But, two minutes before the ultimatum expired the Serbian reply was handed to the Austrian ambassador. Without waiting to read it, he broke off relations and caught the train from Belgrade, in accordance with his instructions.

"

From Liddell Hart's History of the First World War.




Given Liddell Hart's reputation for putting into Wehrmacht officers' mouth that the doctrine of armoured warfare, and tangentially the concept of Blitzkrieg in fact was "invented" by the British in 1920s, to the point of badgering them into saying so, I would be a little bit skeptical of this particular quote from him. Littell Hart has written his HOTFWW when it was accepted by everyone that Germany was to blame, and that while the Versailles Treaty was a harsh vindication of that it was well-deserved.

Plus, let's not kid ourselves: The Serbian did not accept the ultimatum. They accepted all the points except allowing Austrian officers to investigate the assassination in Serbia, and Vienna made it clear it was an all-or-nothing proposition. No negociation, no maybe. Take it or we are at war. Even if Liddell Hart said was true, it is most probable that when handing their Serbian reply the official said something like "We accept everything your government asks, except the Austrian policemen part. But we are open to negociate this". This made the point moot. No need to read the document, because to Vienna this was tantamount to a rejected ultimatum anyway.

quote:

Instructions were given to the Austrian Minister in Belgrade, Baron von Gieslingen, whereby if "no unconditionally positive answer" is received by the Serbian government within "the 48-hour deadline" of the ultimatum ("as measured from the day and hour of your announcing it"), the Minister should proceed to leave the Austro-Hungarian Embassy of Belgrade together with all its personnel.[98]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Serbian_uncertainty


Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 59
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:45:57 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Actually you're all wrong My family caused WWI. Had an old photo of a relative who was a midwife holding the baby that had been delivered she was caring for who would become Kaiser Wilhelm. Even have a medal from the German government to her for "TREUE DIENSTE" (True Service)

Had she not been there for the Kaiser it is possible WWI would never had happened. Come to think of it, maybe WWII then wouldn't have happened. Yes folks a family to be proud of for sure.
warspite1

Did she mangle his arm on the 'way out' on purpose?



Sounds like something the family might do. I do have the medal but wouldn't be able to come up with her name. My last name is French but may mothers maiden name, and most grandparents, great grandparents and back had German names. Just thought it would be fun to add my possible/improbable reasons to the thread for the fun of it.

warspite1

I'm confused - so you are actually called Yogi the Geniale?


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.168