Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The Fischer Controversy
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Hello fellow Historians. I don't post on this board generally because my knowledge is way too shallow to debate much history-related. This is despite the fact that I am studying history at university at the moment, and I have a question which his related to that.
Which serious German historians have denied Fischer's thesis that WW1 was basically Germany's fault? Do any reputable Germans deny it, or is there basically a consensus?
I have come across the likes of Mommsen (can't remember which one) but all the detractors I have found have stuck to arguing marginal points, such as that, while Fischer was basically right, the other Great Powers were spoiling for war too. Or alternatively that Fischer relied overly heavily on Bethman's september programme, which is not true in my opinion.
Any help is much appreciated. -
Message 2
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 16th January 2006
without aswering the specific question i would like to say that, all the nations involved in the first world war thought they were fighitng a defencive war
serbia was protecting itself against the austrians, austria was protecting itself against the russians, germany was protecting itself from france, france was protecting itself against germany
the only super power who couldn't argue such a thing was britain as nobody was attacking her -
Message 3
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
without aswering the specific question i would like to say that, all the nations involved in the first world war thought they were fighitng a defencive war
serbia was protecting itself against the austrians, austria was protecting itself against the russians, germany was protecting itself from france, france was protecting itself against germany
the only super power who couldn't argue such a thing was britain as nobody was attacking herÌý
The german public may have thought they were, but according to fishcer, and he's pretty comprehensive, the German gov't had much the same aims as in WW2.
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done -
Message 4
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Monday, 16th January 2006
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done
Ìý
Well, the British didn't want one country winning hegemony in Europe simply because this would pose a threat to the British Empire and Britain's position as Europe's greatest power. I'm not sure you can call that noble.
cheers,
Paul -
Message 5
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done
Ìý
Well, the British didn't want one country winning hegemony in Europe simply because this would pose a threat to the British Empire and Britain's position as Europe's greatest power. I'm not sure you can call that noble.
cheers,
PaulÌý
true but it was noble BECAUSE it was british. plus, of course, we did the French a huge favour, which they really didn't deserve, considering the history between us and them -
Message 6
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 16th January 2006
exactly, we knew that a german occupied europe would not be a good idea as it would effect the empire
the germans knew that war with france was innevitable and that they might aswell get it over with
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done
Ìý
Well, the British didn't want one country winning hegemony in Europe simply because this would pose a threat to the British Empire and Britain's position as Europe's greatest power. I'm not sure you can call that noble.
cheers,
PaulÌý -
Message 7
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Monday, 16th January 2006
<quote user='FEC' userid='2276153'
true but it was noble BECAUSE it was british. plus, of course, we did the French a huge favour, which they really didn't deserve, considering the history between us and them</quote>
It was noble because it was British....hmmmmm.
"We did the French a huge favour" - Unless you are over 100 years old "we" did nothing as "we" weren't born at the time. I assume when you say "we" you mean the British of the time.
Cheers,
Paul -
Message 8
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
<quote user='gorman1' userid='1772828'><quote user='FEC' userid='2276153'
true but it was noble BECAUSE it was british. plus, of course, we did the French a huge favour, which they really didn't deserve, considering the history between us and them</quote>
It was noble because it was British....hmmmmm.
"We did the French a huge favour" - Unless you are over 100 years old "we" did nothing as "we" weren't born at the time. I assume when you say "we" you mean the British of the time.
Cheers,
Paul</quote>
no sh t. -
Message 9
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
exactly, we knew that a german occupied europe would not be a good idea as it would effect the empire
the germans knew that war with france was innevitable and that they might aswell get it over with
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done
Ìý
Well, the British didn't want one country winning hegemony in Europe simply because this would pose a threat to the British Empire and Britain's position as Europe's greatest power. I'm not sure you can call that noble.
cheers,
PaulÌý Ìý
how was a german-french war inevitable? they did not have conflicting interests, unless, that is, the Germans were aiming at hegemony in Europe. the french fought the war for the same reason as us, but, unlike us, they were also fighting for survival against an overbearing, aggressive neighbour.
can I just draw people's attention to the original point in this thread? this is all very interesting, but I would like an answer if anyone can provide one. -
Message 10
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 16th January 2006
FEC
Look to the Russians as well, and their War Aims. I remember when I studied the period as an undergrad finding out how Tsar exploited European tensions for his own end. Who was backing Serbia?
Elistan -
Message 11
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
FEC
Look to the Russians as well, and their War Aims. I remember when I studied the period as an undergrad finding out how Tsar exploited European tensions for his own end. Who was backing Serbia?
ElistanÌý
yes indeed. the russians, though, did not want to conflagrate what could have been a regional dispute into a world war. they did not want war with germany, and it is entirely plausible that, without the germans meddling in austrian affairs, even a war between austria and russia could have been avoided. again, can I draw people's attention back to my original question? -
Message 12
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 16th January 2006
i'm sorry but i can't answer the original post as i know nothing of it
but i can tell you that as soon as germany gave austria backing to invade serbia, that is when the war turned into a world war
russia would invade austria if serbia was invaded, making austria hesitant, but germany assured austria that she would back her up
russia had to invade austria as serbia was in jeopardy and germany had to invade russia as austria was in jeopardy
france had an agreement with russia so as soon as russia was being invaded by the germans, france had to declare war on germany
so what germany wanted to do was just get france out of the way
i don't even know if i can follow that, it really was that confusing
exactly, we knew that a german occupied europe would not be a good idea as it would effect the empire
the germans knew that war with france was innevitable and that they might aswell get it over with
The British aim was a noble one, though- to stop any one power winning hegemony. Without us, Germany probably would have done
Ìý
Well, the British didn't want one country winning hegemony in Europe simply because this would pose a threat to the British Empire and Britain's position as Europe's greatest power. I'm not sure you can call that noble.
cheers,
PaulÌý Ìý
how was a german-french war inevitable? they did not have conflicting interests, unless, that is, the Germans were aiming at hegemony in Europe. the french fought the war for the same reason as us, but, unlike us, they were also fighting for survival against an overbearing, aggressive neighbour.
can I just draw people's attention to the original point in this thread? this is all very interesting, but I would like an answer if anyone can provide one.Ìý -
Message 13
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 16th January 2006
the world war was guaranteed when germany gave austria it's support for the invasion of serbia
-
Message 14
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Trident, your last to posts I would agree with, but the point is that the french-russian alliance was largely a defensive one against german aggression. as you say, the escalation was inevitable when germany assured austria of support against Serbia.
But the point is, and this was Fischer's major point, the germans didn't just assure austria, but put a HUGE amount of pressure on her to act, since in this way could a war be started without Germany actually declaring it. -
Message 15
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 16th January 2006
FEC,
I don't know the name of any specific German Historian who defended the German stance.
On the other point it was well known throughout the diplomatic core in the prelude to WWI that German tactics in relationto a conflict initated in the Balkans was to attack France first.In fact, there were not many scenarios that did not involve attack ing France first. This was well known in Russia. Tsar Nicholas's conceit was that the Allied side was getting to be stronger than the Germans and the Austrians, and that if he did not conflagrate the local Balkan dispute the moment would pass when such an event would have caused a continent wide dispute. Within this context Russia could turn its attention to its actual war aim of winning the Bospuros from the Ottoman Empire (German Ally). Its inability to achieve these aims does not discount the actuality of their role in the decision to stir up the tensions between A/H and Serbia.
Elistan -
Message 16
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
FEC,
I don't know the name of any specific German Historian who defended the German stance.
On the other point it was well known throughout the diplomatic core in the prelude to WWI that German tactics in relationto a conflict initated in the Balkans was to attack France first.In fact, there were not many scenarios that did not involve attack ing France first. This was well known in Russia. Tsar Nicholas's conceit was that the Allied side was getting to be stronger than the Germans and the Austrians, and that if he did not conflagrate the local Balkan dispute the moment would pass when such an event would have caused a continent wide dispute. Within this context Russia could turn its attention to its actual war aim of winning the Bospuros from the Ottoman Empire (German Ally). Its inability to achieve these aims does not discount the actuality of their role in the decision to stir up the tensions between A/H and Serbia.
ElistanÌý
Again, tis all very interesting.
''Tsar Nicholas's conceit was that the Allied side was getting to be stronger than the Germans and the Austrians''
Yes, the Germans believed this too, which is why they wanted a general war sooner than later.
The rest of your post is new to me, and I can't really comment on it except to say that it doesn't surprise me. I did say that the Russians didn't want a war against Germany, though. is that true then? -
Message 17
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 16th January 2006
I think Nicholas was relying on his allies to hold Germany in check whilst he was able to exploit the situation to his advantage. This is based on quotes attributed to Nicholas in realtion to how control of the Bosporus (a long time Russian ambition) would be a credible outcome from just such a conflict. The fact that his ability to step up to plate was only a fraction of what he thought it was serves to underscore the systemic failure that was in existence within the Russian world at that time. According to the evidence I found when I did that paper in 1914 Nicholas firmly believed that Britain and Farnce were ready to beat Germany then, and all he had to do was hold on to share in the spoils. Any later and Germany would have backed down in face of certain defeat.
-
Message 18
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Again, interesting. Yup, he sounds like he was seriously deluded. Both he and the germans were wrong- who expected a rout of the french along the lines of 1870-1.
''Any later and Germany would have backed down in face of certain defeat.''
the interesting thing was that germany considered the war inevitable, although they did suffer some jitters at the very last minute. as devious/naive/stupid as the russians were, then, i still blame germany for the escalation of the war, and this just about squares with your account of Russian aims. -
Message 19
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Monday, 16th January 2006
The Germans had refused to back Austria on earlier occasions, and 1914 represented the best Naval ratio they were likely to attain in the forseeable future against Britain, bearing in mind they still expected the RN to attempt close blockade. If Italy had come in as part of the Triple Alliance, the French position in the Med would have been parlous indeed. On balance, I'd say Germany's leaders were ready to accept war in 1914. I'd be a little less sure of claiming they actually wanted it, still less that they set out to provoke it.
-
Message 20
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
The Germans had refused to back Austria on earlier occasions, and 1914 represented the best Naval ratio they were likely to attain in the forseeable future against Britain, bearing in mind they still expected the RN to attempt close blockade. If Italy had come in as part of the Triple Alliance, the French position in the Med would have been parlous indeed. On balance, I'd say Germany's leaders were ready to accept war in 1914. I'd be a little less sure of claiming they actually wanted it, still less that they set out to provoke it.Ìý On this occasion, they didn't so much back austria as corner them into acting against Serbia. again, they considered the war inevitable, partly due to the warped Rankean view of the nation state, they wanted to fight it as soon as possible, and they had no reason to fight a general war other than for conquest.
-
Message 21
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Monday, 16th January 2006
-
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Re: Message 9.
FEC,
can I point you to my answer about Fischer on the "History Hub" to the same question of you?
Kind regards. -
Message 23
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
The Schiefflen (sp?) Plan was 15 years old at in 1914. The Germans are guilty of pre-mediatated war making.
I know of no historian who thinks that Germany was just dragged into the war by fate. The Great War is an area in which I have done a fair amount of reading.
JB -
Message 24
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
The Schiefflen (sp?) Plan was 15 years old at in 1914. The Germans are guilty of pre-mediatated war making.
I know of no historian who thinks that Germany was just dragged into the war by fate. The Great War is an area in which I have done a fair amount of reading.
JBÌý
Good stuff JB. That was what I thought. 'Schliefflen' has also been spelt 'Schliessen' elsewhere on these boards. The correct spelling is 'Schlieffen'.
Why is it that most people just think that all countries were dragged into a war? How dumb is that? Surely there must have been aggressors with motives. Otherwise war wouldn't have happened. TO say there weren't simply doesn't make sense. -
Message 25
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
Planning what you will do if something happens is not the same as planning to make it happen. I always check the fire escape route when I stay in a hotel. I haven't yet set light to one.
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.