Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Russia:1914
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by MusicManic (U2108776) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Why did Russia mobilise in 1914?
Thats the question i need to answer for my assignment and i am very stuck! can someone help me out or at least point me in the right direction??
-
Message 2
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
IMO the Tzarist government was in trouble. The country was on the verge of revolution. By mobilizing, the Tzar hoped to get the people to ralley around him to fight off the invador. He, and most other Europeans expected the war to last a few months at the most.
Instead it went on and on. Millions and millions of Russians lost their lives. Food became scarse in the cities. And then Germany sent Nikoli Lennin (sp) into Russia hoping to forment a revolution. The idea worked like a dream.
I sincerely hope others post here. I could be completely wrong. But maybe others will read my post and point out the mistakes. -
Message 3
Posted by MusicManic (U2108776) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
thanx jesw! the tsar being Nicholas II???
-
Message 4
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
yes! But I really hope others answer your question. DL, where are you when I need you?
-
Message 5
Posted by Kid_A (U2618060) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Hmm, well thats half an answer.
The Tzar (Nicholas II) was indeed facing problems at home, but not any that were on the verge of revolution. However, he did believe that if he was able to make Austria-Hungary back down, it would gain him some prestige within his country, and perhaps distract the Russian people from their own problems.
However, he never expected Germany to retaliate and mobilse themselevs, let alone launch a pre emptive strike.
In summary, Russia wasnted to scare Austria Hungary for two reasons, to gain some prestige and to "protect" serbia. yes! But I really hope others answer your question. DL, where are you when I need you?Ìý
-
Message 6
Posted by MusicManic (U2108776) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
<quote user='Like_Spinning_Plates' userid='2618060'>Hmm, well thats half an answer.
The Tzar (Nicholas II) was indeed facing problems at home, but not any that were on the verge of revolution. However, he did believe that if he was able to make Austria-Hungary back down, it would gain him some prestige within his country, and perhaps distract the Russian people from their own problems.
However, he never expected Germany to retaliate and mobilse themselevs, let alone launch a pre emptive strike.
In summary, Russia wasnted to scare Austria Hungary for two reasons, to gain some prestige and to "protect" serbia.quote>
thanx Like_spinning_plates. sorry for being really stupid but y did serbia need "protecting"? -
Message 7
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Hi All!
In 1914 the two great Balcan empires-the Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian were both breaking apart
under presure from NATIONALIST movements.
Germany and Russia both sought to advance its interests in the region,so the same way as now Putin's Russia has inclined into the idea that the post-Soviet countries are the area of their 'own interests'.
Well,the occupation of Constantinopol and the control of the Dardanells,through which,the half Russian foreign trade passed,had been its main imperial ambition since the time of Peter the Great,.
So-called Russian 'liberals' were and are imperialists of their true nature and took an active interest in imperial matters and increasingly called for a more aggressive policy in defence of Russia's Balcan interests.
The Octobrists led the way ,seeking to stop the decline of their own political fortunes by sponsoring a Russian 'nationalist'(i.e. imperialist-the trick was(is) that Russia became the Empire but failed in the way to become the Nation).
Guchkov ,their leader,condemned the diplomats' decision not to go to war in 1908 ,when Austria annexed Bosnia-Gerzogovina,as a betrayal of Russia's HISTORIC MISSION(something is there in common with their own branch of religion) to defend the Balcan Slavs(???).The R. people ,he declared,was ready for war with the German races.Other party of 'liberals'-Kadets fashioned their own version of Slavic imperialism.That Struve denounced the Bosnian affair as a 'national disgrace'(as Zirinovsky denounced some events to be the 'national desgrace' in Yugoslavia during the war against Miloshevicha's regime).
Russia's destiny,he argued was to extend its 'civilization' to the whole of Black Sea basin.
This was to be achieved by a combination of imperial might and the 'free' association of all the 'Slavic nations'-which in his view would look upon R. as a 'constitutional haven from Teutonic oppression'.Nearly the same thoughts had the other R. 'liberals':Konovalov,Riabushinsky and so on.
Germanophobia ran extremely deep in Russian society.THE REVOLUTION WAS PARTLY BASED ON IT-both as a rejection against the war and as rejection of the German-dominated Romanov court. This fear of Germany stemmed from in part from the R. feeling that they were living on the edge of a backward,semi-Asiatic society and that everythin' modern and progressive came to 'em from the West. -
Message 8
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Why did Russia mobilise in 1914?
Thats the question i need to answer for my assignment and i am very stuck! can someone help me out or at least point me in the right direction??Ìý
MusicManic
I dealt with this question myself several years ago. I remember I discovered a quote from Tsar Nicholas II that he wanted to capture the Bospurus straits from Turkey. This was in a large collection of quotes, the name of the book escapes me but it was easily found in a general library.
The loss of the 1905 conflict with the Japanese badly damaged the Russian Tsar's personal prestige, but it also limited the naval options of Russia as well. With the Pacific fleet defeated by the Japanese and the Bospurus closed to it the only naval outlet was from leningrad through the baltic or Archanagel into the Antartic. The Baltic option was blocked by the burgeoning German naval presence, and the Antartic is seasonal. Remember that naval strength was the key to overseas exploitation, and was the key to the conflict as a whole.
The defence of the serbian stance against the Austrio-Hungarian was based on an assumption that the Balance of Power on land had shifted towards the allies, which it had been doing so since the 1911 Morroccan stand-off. If the Tsar had not exploited that oppurtunity to mobilise the balance of power would have significantly have shifted against the German/Austrian Axis to a level that war would have been unjustified. Russia effectively gauded Austria into a conflict in the full knowledge that it precipitate a continent-wide conflict in the belief that it would end up on the winning side and be unable to assume control of the Bosporus in the wake of the Ottoman collapse that most people predicted as an outcome of any European war.
To understand the mindset of a man who would be willing to start swuch a war for his personal gain (in prestige) and minor strategic advantage remember that this is a man that said to the American delegation something all the lines of that 'I and my cousins (George and Wilhelm and Nicholas were all first cousins) will decide when this conflict is over'. An absolute monarch of the middle ages variety in a modern war.
Hope that is of some help. I wish I furnish you with the quote itself, but I don't have the reference to hand. But hunting this stuff for verification is most of the joy of history writing anyway.
Elistan -
Message 9
Posted by MusicManic (U2108776) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
thanx elistan! im going to try and look for that book!
-
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Re: Message 8.
Elistan,
Third paragraph: "and be unable to assume control of the Bosforus" Did I understood it wrong, or had it to be "able"?
Elistan, thank you very much for this excellent exposé. On such moments I am proud to be involved in these British Â鶹ԼÅÄ history message boards and to read a fair contribution of another member. (as I expect it from other contributors too (big smile))
"But hunting this stuff for verification is most of the joy of history writing anyway"
Elistan, I sought this night for the "escape of General Giraud from France with the submarine Seraph in October 1942" for another thread. I had already told the story on these boards from someone, who assisted? But I didn't find it back. At more than an hour I found it under another website: "The Official Chronology of the US Navy in world War II - 1942". And it was such a joy to achieve the verification...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
hi music man,
what course are doing and where, that gives you a question like that ?
i want to do a course like that
it is one of my best subjects
thanks -
Message 12
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Paul
Thanks for kind comments, and yes you are right it should have read 'be able to assume control of Bosporus'. I still remember the thrill when I discovered that quote, which enabled me to look at it from a new perspective. Its always good to try to see as many angles as possible.
Elistan -
Message 13
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
'The loss of the 1905 conflict with the Japanese badly damaged the Russian Tsar's personal prestige'....more important thing was that it had generated the First Russian revolution...
....The Pan-Slav's views were held by the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich ,a military man with a powerful influence over the Tzar who in August 1914 was appointed Russian Commander-in-Chief.His father had fought in the Balkan compaigns of 1877-78.Many generals shared the Grand Duke's Slavic sympathies.The Tzar himself was slowly coming round to the Pan-Slavic camp.By 1914 he was of the view that the time had come for a firm stand against Austria,if even not against her more powerful ally in Berlin....But by far the most pressing concern was the threat of a new revolution if R. bogged down in a long compaign.There was nothing the revolutionary leaders would now welcome than a war...But from Germany's point of view,if there was to be a war with R.,then it was better fought sooner than later....When the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by Serbians this placed Nicholas in an impossible situation....If he went to war,he ran the risk of defeat and a revolution,but if he didn't,there might be a sudden uprising of patriotic feelings against him which could also result in loss of political control.There was a little time to reach a decision ..... -
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Damn!
Too slow John! Only just spotted this one, and Elistan and OUNUPA have covered practically everything! Just as an afterthought, could World War One be considered as the biggest "family tiff" in history? Considering that the heads of state of most of the belligerent nations were all related, I think it could be an apt description. I don't know, most of us end up with the odd punch-up at a wedding, and Queen Victoria's nephews couldn't settle for that, they had to end up dragging everyone else in, and kill millions in the process.
Cheers
DL -
Message 15
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
DL,
nice imagery, George, Wilhelm and Nicholas having a go at Princess Alice's wedding!
More seriously, whilst Nicholas and Wilhelm could claim a family tiff poor ole George, whilst head of the most powerful nation, was the least powerful monarch of them all!
I would loved to have seen him tell Lloyd George that 'cousin willy's real sorry, and can't we all just be friends again, like when we were young?'
Elistan -
Message 16
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
DL: No problem. I have really learned a lot about the 1914 European political situation. I must admit I had forgotten about the 1905 Russo-Japaneese War. I would agree that had a lot to do with Tzar Nicholas II's decision. I also like your statement that WWI may have been the worlds largest "Family Feud" in History.
I don't know what the term "Odd punch up" means. If you get a chance, please explain it.
Nice to chat again. -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Found that one well funny!
You can imagine Wilhelm as well, when he went to the Review of the Royal Navy at Spithead going back to Berlin and having a little tantrum
(Stamps feet) "But it's NOT FAIR!!! I Want a new battleship like George!!!
Dreadnought envy at its worst!
With regards to the "odd punch-up" comment John, it is sort of an urban myth in the UK that when there is a wedding, all the old hidden family animosities come to the surface, and there is a "punch-up", usually over some family argument from decades (or even generations) ago! It does actually happen as well!
Cheers -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
The other thing which I found both perplexing and amusing in a dark way is the level of anti-German propaganda that was churned out in the UK, shops looted that had German proprietors etc, especially considering the ethnic origin of the King of England!
The lines from Blackadder goes Forth say it all-
Captain Darling "Of course I'm British, I'm as British as Queen Victoria!!!"
Blackadder "You mean your Father's a German, you're half German and you married a German???"
It just makes you wonder how on earth these people actually allowed the war to start! Utter political incompetence! Entente Cordiale, Bah! I still reckon we were on the wrong side!! The French had always been our natural enemy, and the Germans (well, Prussians) were historically our ally. We swapped alliances, and look what happens-the two most violent and destructive wars in human history, and they can all be blamed on the fact that we decided to be friends with the French!!!!!
Cheers
(VERY tongue in cheek folks...)
DL -
Message 19
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
That Bezobrazov,a well connected speculator with his own interests in Korea persuaded the Tzar to reject the Japanese offer of acompromise,that making the Russian-Japanese war unavoidable .But a war could have been avoided if Russia's foreign policy had been in competent hands.
+It was planned as 'a little victorius war to stem the revolution'...hmmm... -
Message 20
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
DL: I know you were being "Tongue-in-cheek," (many a truth is said in jest) you hit on a, IMO, brilliant point. As long as England and Prussia were allies against the French, there seemed to be a stand-off and Quid Pro Quo. but once England, France, and Russia allied themselves, Germany, Austria, and Hungry became very nervous. It might be a great "What if" topic to question what might have happened had England stayed with Germany.
-
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Hmmm,
There could be something in that! The balance of power was always a tricky one, and the creation of the Entente did certainly tip the scales. We didn't see any British involvement in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, were the French got (to use Expat's favourite expression) their butts kicked by the Prussians, so I would guess that prompted them into seeking an alliance with Britain. How the mighty had fallen, from being the undisputed masters of Europe under Napoleon, to getting resoundingly thrashed by Germany, only a mere fledgling nation at the time.
On a more serious note however, I think the battleship arms race between Germany and Britain prior to WW1 would have made such an alliance as existed in the Napoleonic wars impossible. Germany was a new nation, and had imperialistic ambition (only understandable as all her neighbours seemed to have an empire,even Belgium!), and since there was no decent territory left in the world to be claimed as colonies, her only option was to challenge an existing empire, so some sort of conflict between Britain and Germany would have been inevitable.
Cheers -
Message 22
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Bismarack's successes could be seen as ultimately the death of the British-Prussian understandings that had existed since the Napoleonic Wars. British continental policy in the nineteenth was largely based on an assumption that there was a balance of power without Britain's direct involvement. France-Russia was balanced by Prussia(Germany)-Austria-Hungary. If Wilhelm had gotten over his Dreadnought envy (Nice one DL) German expansion on the mainland would probably continued to receive tacit approval from a pro-german Britain.
However, the strength of post-Bismarck Germany was always a concern, and especially when the tinpot kaiser wanted to play with his toys. Wilhelm's inept efforts at gunboat diplomacy in Morrocco merely underscored for the British why they could not allow his continual military expansion to go unchecked. If war had not broken out in the Autumn of 1914 Britain and France alone would have had sufficent men and materials to twart any ambitions of the kaiser, and Britain hadn't even really gone on a war footing by then, merely one of naval consolidation. The poignant images of the last of the phoney troops in that excellent programme 'The Last Tommy' underscores this point. If Britain had really thought that the Germans were willing to go for it and had turn their industrial heartland over to arms before conflict who knows...
I reckon that this one of the reasons that Nicholas and Wilhelm both jumped in 1914. Wilhelm should have jumped in 1911, but backed off, and this was his last chance or he would have to back down (which ultimately would have meant a change in the general structure of German life, as a militaristic society that has no war will question why the military run the show). Nicholas needed the war for all the reasons outlined above.
I don't think the Entente was ever very Cordiale, considering the North Africa landgrab to nature had pursued up until the 1900s. It was a flag of convenience because of Wilhelm's inept handling of a skillfully crafted tool.
On the anti-german sentiment, is that not why the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha became the House of Windsor?
Elistan -
Message 23
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Elistan & DL: WOW! For the first time in my life I am starting to see some of the political problems Europe faced in 1914. I must admit that most (OK all) of my training was in U.S. schools and universities. Most of the books I read were "American." I never looked at some of the points from your point of view.
When I was in High School I read all, I thinf four, of the books Sir Winston wrote abut WWI. I thought then and still tend to think they were very biased. I haven't read his works on WWII. May have too some day. -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Elistan,
Agreed totally! You were spot on the change of surname of the Royals in Britain too!
I wonder how they managed to reconcile their German heritage with the events of the 20th Century? -
Message 25
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Elistan,
Agreed totally! You were spot on the change of surname of the Royals in Britain too!
I wonder how they managed to reconcile their German heritage with the events of the 20th Century? Ìý
I'm sure the money helped! -
Message 26
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
Those Frenchmen don't like to learn English language.... Russians don't like to do it also...
But in 1914 in this wave of anti-German feeling Russians even changed their names to make 'em sound more Russian:thus,for example,the orientalist Wilhelm Wilhelmovich Struve became Vasiliy Vasilievich Struve.The government also changed the German-sounding name of St.Petersburg to the more Slavonic Petrograd.Tzar Nicholas had never liked St.Petersburg for its Western tradition,and had long been trying to Russify its appearence by adding Muscovite motifs to its classical buildings.... -
Message 27
Posted by RamBow (U2053843) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
MusicManic
I’m just adding a little to others.
The French-Russian alliance 1891-1893 was supported by wide financial help, because Russian government had had severe financial crisis before and they believed those loans were the only thing to do. For twenty years Russian debt was extremely growing and by 1914 a lot of Frenchmen (about every tenth if I don’t confuse) held Russian bonds. So Russia was chained up firmly and couldn’t take a part in war preparation, in spite of numerous german-blood aristocrats.
RamBow -
Message 28
Posted by MusicManic (U2108776) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
hey thanx everyone! i havent actually read through all of the posts yet but will do soon.
someone was asking what course im doing which requires me to do such a question..well im doing modern european history at uni. (sorry i forgot who it was that was asking!!!) -
Message 29
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 30th November 2005
MusicManic
It was the military doctrine of that times.
Since a full mobilisations tooks weeks in Russia case month to fully mobilise,couldnt one country stand aside and see when the other did mobilise and be caught with their trousers down.
So when Austria.Hungary did mobilise for an attack on Serbia after the serb terrorist Princip did shot Frans Ferdinand in Sarajevo,did Russia se itself forced to start a mobilisation,wich automaticly triggered the German and presto WWI.
One of the ironies is that if the Austrian CoS Conrad von Hötzendorf was alowed what he liked just to have a couple of divisions screening the Russians and throwing the whole army against Serbia.Its possible that Serbia would have been overun and punished quickly and thus avoiding the big one.
The start of the WWI with its domino theory of mobilisation,and the mashinlike precision the plans was followed tru without pausing to think,gave the whole future military and political thinking a new path.
To pause,think and trye to reason with your counter part,with pre WWI doctrine would the cold war in Europe after WWII on many times been a hot one.
Hasse -
Message 30
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
Hi Hasse
There is the point.
On 28July 1914 Austria declared war on Serbia.
In that day Nicholas ordered
the PARTIAL mobilization
of his troops and made one LAST APPEAL to the Kaizer to forestall the Austrian attack on Belgrade...
Two days later the Kaizer replied,
renouncing Germany's neutrality in Serbian
question.Realizing that a German declaration of war against R. was now imminent(it came on 1 August) the Tzar called for
the GENERAL mobilization on 31 July.
Frenchmen brought a mess on the original plan of the R. high-command.
R. thought to launch an offensive on the S.-W.Front against the weaker Austrian forces,whilst defending the N.-W.Front against the more stronger Germans.But under pressure from France the plan was changed to an ALL-OUT offensive ON BOTH FRONTS!!!to force the Germans to TRASFER troops from the theatre in the west and thus RELIEVE THE FRENCHMEN!
Kind regards,
OUNUPA. -
Message 31
Posted by RamBow (U2053843) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
Ouch... Message 27 Correction:
Russia ... couldn’t take a part in war preparation
RamBowÌý
"...couldn't stay away from", of course
Pardon
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.