Wars and Conflicts permalink
Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
I'm trying to get a steer on whether it's fair to say that Imperial Germany was determined to have a war in Europe simply to exert its own dominance as the latest nation state, and that whatever else any of the other nations could have done to avoid war, IG would still have done all it could to ensure some kind of war to that end.
I appreciate that it was the war party in A-H that was similarly determined to have a post-assassination Balkan war in order to destroy independent Serbia in order to prevent it becoming an/any more of an 'attractor/agitator' for Serbs (and other Slavs) living within A-H, but is it fair to say that without IG's agenda of a war simply to 'kick ass' in Europe, A-H's destruction of Serbia would not have embroiled other nations except Russia, and would have been confined to 'yet another' local Balkan affair?
I'm very tempted to set the blame for WWI on IG, but maybe I've been reading the wrong books!
(I know there's been a dicussion on this topic last autumn, but I hope it's OK to start a new one)(BTW, I agree with Terakune - it's persuasive to see WWI as a deliberate distraction from social unrest - it must have worked - shamefully, the socialist parties in both France and Germany backed the war, so I understand).
Many thanks for answers!Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 2
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
imperial germany cannot really be held to account. they and all of the WWI participants were the victims of s complicated web of alliances that had spread over europe. the fact that there was a naval arms race between UK and germany was a strong factor but not the one that would have tipped the balance to war. that as everyone knows or should know was the shooting of archduke ferdinand.
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 3
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Failures of diplomacy in the complex web of alliances and competing interests, along with miscommunications, and misunderstanding were also in part a cause for Europe spiraling out of control and becoming enveloped by war on a previously unimagined scale.
However, that does not provide an adequate foundation for the statement made by Raybans13, which allows the political leaders of the time to be considered completely unaccountable for the decisions and actions that created the nations' warring state in the first place. When nations spend tens of millions on the machinery of war and tens of thousands on peaceful pursuits, the priorities, motivations and outcomes can be clearly seen. I find it difficult to accept a belligerent Germany cast in the role of victim, a role, as Raybans13 suggests, all the warring parties should be cast. Will George Bush and Tony Blair be excused for initiating the war in Iraq on the basis that they were victims of the complex web of shifting alliances and power relations in the Middle East? God forbid. Neither should the Kaiser, the Emperor, the crowned heads of Europe, the mad revolutionaries and anarchists, or any of those men and women enamoured of violence be excused from culpability from whatever part they played in bringing that most useless of conflicts about.
The only victims in WWI were those unfortunate people caught up in the holocaust that is war, a war created by their political leaders. They are the ones who suffered the full brunt of the brutality inflicted.
The Kaiser, the wealthy industrialists and bankers who built and supported the war industries, the approving nobility, the violent revolutionaries and ruling political elites do not deserve to have their names praised in history, but should be regarded as objects of scorn and loathing as men and women who caused the nations of the world to go to war.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 4
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Im sure Allan D will pick up on this thread and give you a more definative answer but heres my "two penneth"
Yes I would say that Imperial Germany had the leading role in bringing about WW1.It is true to say that the Austria Hungarian Empire's action commmenced a chain of events that brought into play various alliances and mobilisations which lead to war (thinking the Russian mobilsation here).But you cannot forget that this was not the first time that sabre's had been rattled,there had been the Agadir crisis and the the Naval scare of 1910.The German "Sniefflen Plan" to wheel through Belgium would mean the involvement of the British under treaty obligation,and the Germans knew this.The naval arms race whilst arguably not a direct cause of British entry had none the less put Germany on a collision cause the the UK and commonwealth.
The Kaiser and his cronies with ambitious jealousy had an awful lot to do with this for me,so yes I would argue the case that they had a fair amount of respolity to bear.
VfLink to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 5
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Well, Imperial Germany can be blamed for setting fire to the fuse of the powder keg that was Europe. Germany encouraged and even pushed Austria-Hungary to take a hard line with Serbia.
The decisive moment came on July 5, when the Austrian ambassador asked Wilhelm II what Germany would do in the event of an Austrian-Serbian, and be necessary extension an Austrian-Russian, war. The Kaiser's reply has been called a "blank check", he ensured the Austrians that they could count the support of the German Empire. This encouraged the Austro-Hungarian government to cast its ultimatum in to Serbia in a form that was designed to be unacceptable.
This behavior of Wilhelm II and his government was folly. They could have few illusions about what the German ambassador in Vienna called "this phantasm of a state which is cracking in every direction" or about the ability of the Austrian army to stand up even against the Russian army. The essence of the situation was that Vienna had been given authorization to play with fire; if it went wrong it would start a war on two fronts that Germany would have to fight (with a little help from Austria).
Berlin probably took this extraordinary step, because after years of failed diplomacy and the at times wild and counterproductive behavior of the Kaiser, Austria-Hungary was the only major power still allied to Germany. Arguably, Germany's fatal blunder was the naval arms race with Britain. It was pointless, because the Hochseeflotte could never expect to achieve parity with the Royal Navy, but it drove Britain into an alliance with its old enemies France and Russia. Thus having almost isolated itself, Germany felt obliged to go to war on behalf of the only major ally it still had.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 6
Posted by whiterosethetinman (U9019961) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I know is has nothing to do with the topic and i am sorry for this but what happened to Kaiser Wilhelm II.as i know what happen to the Tsar but not him
thanks ninaLink to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 7
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Nina
He was exiled to Holland(?)in 1918,I think (from memory) that he died in 1945.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 8
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Mutatis Mutandis,
Great post,put it far better than I managed to do,but I was thinking along the same lines.Ive just started to read Robert Massie's "Dreadnought",a fantastic book which describes the chain of events leading up to the commencement of WW1.Despite the title its not soley based on the the warship itself,but on the events that lead up to the commencement of war.
Whilst I would never take one text as a full appraisal of a person or situation,the book does seem to reinforce a belief that I had held that the Kaiser had a huge inferioty complex and a very poor grasp of diplomacy.
VfLink to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 9
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
"Dreadnought" is indeed a great book. The follow-up, "Castles of Steel" is good too, although I think that to get a good understanding of how the Royal Navy operated in 1914-18 Andrew Gordon's "The Rules of the Game" is a necessary complement.
I don't know whether there is a good biography of Wilhelm II. That he had inferiority complex seems fairly certain. The Marquess of Salisbury who was Queen Victoria's longest serving prime minister, wrote that the Kaiser needed to be treated "like a jealous woman who insists on the undivided devotion of all her admirers".
He went way beyond a mere poor grasp of diplomacy. It is hard to describe this extraordinary man. He could be called the George W. Bush of the early 20th century, except that while most "Bushisms" merely make people laugh or cringe, the Kaiser had an extraordinary talent for causing mayhem with a few ineptly chosen words. His most notorious effort may have been the speech he gave for the troops that were sent to China to deal with "Boxer Rebellion":
"No pardon will be given, and prisoners will not be taken. Any one who falls into you hands falls to your sword! Just as the Huns under their king Etzel [Attila] created for themselves one thousand years ago a name which men still respect, you should give the name of German such cause to be remembered in China for one thousand years that no Chinaman, no matter if his eyes are slit or not, will dare to look a German in the face."Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 10
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I can see that a speech like that would endear him to the international community!
From what Ive read so far the Kaiser was bitterly disappointed that his expeditionary force arrived too late to be involved in the Boxer Rebellion,and that when the German force did arrive as a "peace keeping" force (to use a modern phrase)incidences of unrest went up several fold.
Is Andrew Gordons "Rules of the Game" still in print?as it sound a particulaly good read.I read not so long back a book called the "Rise and fall of British Seapower"(cannot remember the author,only that it was a "Penguin classic").Ive found the political side of naval strategy as interesting(if not more so)than some of the actual conflicts/battles themselves.
"Castles of Steel" is probably one of my favourite books.Whilst I had a reasonable knowledge of the details of such battles such as "Jutland" and "Coronel" I didnt know so much about the backgound of the commanders such as Beatty (and his slightly unhinged wife),Jellicoe and Hipper.I would say that I found some parts of the book to be very similar in content to some of Geoffrey Regans texts it was nonetheless a fascinating read.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 11
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Many thanks for replies and observations so far - nice to know I'm not the only one thinking, yup, it was the Germans who started the war! Thing is, in these revisionist times, when all the 'truisms' I grew up with are being systematically overturned (eg, poor old Catholics weren't to blame for the Gunpowder plot, and even if they did it, they had been Soooooo hard done by so of COURSE they were entitled to butcher the government and the members of parliament plus a kilometre of London folk as well...)(like the Protestants in Catholic countries weren't!), I was wondering whether Germany was being lifted off the hook for the first world war as well.
The character of the Kaiser does seem to have been signally contributory, in the same way as that of Charles I was to the English Civil War - both feeling inferior to all the 'non-disabled' males around. It does seem a dreadful shame that both could not be more self-confident in a mature way, rather than in the way of someone who feels they have to 'out do' the machismo of all the other males around. However, perhaps, in that case, the real 'cause' of WW1 was the Princess Royal, who, I read, was horrified to have given birth to a 'cripple' and did not cherish her son, Wilhelm, as a mother should.
One very minor point - I think the Kaiser died in l940 in Holland. I say this becuase I believe that when Hitler invaded the Netherlands, he set a guard of honour around the estate where the Kaiser was living out his last days in exile.
Speaking of 'inferiority complexes' I would surmise it was not just the Kaiser that had one, but 'Germany' as a whole - being the new kid on the block, and having been created out of bullying and violence towards Denmark, Austria and France, I get the impression that the national mentality was one of endlessly trying to 'prove' itself by constantly doing down every other nation it could get away with (and then, in l918, refusing to admit the guilt of what it had done and resorting to self-pity just like the Japs did in l945....)(with a tad more justification as the first victims of nuclear war, however 'deserved' that status was!)Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 12
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
germany was a victim but of its own diplomatic endevours. their alliances to balkan states - which ones i can't remember along with the alliances of france who i believe also allied herself to balkan states who was in turn allied to the UK and russia. when the shooting of archduke ferdinand occured it set all of the balkan states against each other and it dragged in the major european powers that they were allied to. i did not mean to imply that political leaders of all states at the time are blameless, infact it is they who are to blame because they are the ones that created the highly complicated web of alliances. a lack of communication also plays a role in the outbreak of WWI beause it meant that the states were not able to sit down and talk it out but this does not always happen even in an ideal world.
political circumstances and political leaders are the most to blame seeing as it was they who forged the web of alliances between the balkan states and the european powers.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 4th January 2008
He was exiled to Holland(?)in 1918,I think (from memory) that he died in 1945.Â
Kaiser Bill's exile was self-imposed and he lived first at Amerongen and then at Doorn in Holland, in a private castle he purchased. The Treaty of Versailles provided that Wilhelm be put on trial for war crimes but Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, which had been neutral during WWI, refused to extradite him. She was later to be driven into exile in Britain herself when Germany invaded Holland in 1940.
Wilhelm never returned to Germany again as he thought it would be lese-majeste to do so as a private citizen and would only return as Emperor. There was strong support for a restoration of the monarchy throughout the Weimar Republic particularly in the military and Hindenburg, a fervent monarchist, only accepted the position of President in 1925 to keep the position of head of state warm for his former commander-in-chief.
Wilhelm and his son the Crown Prince kept close links with the Nazis and Goering was a frequent guest at Doorn (although Wilhelm found Hitler vulgar and there is no record of the two ever having met and Hitler thought Wilhelm was cowardly for abandoning not only Germany but the German Army while it was still engaged in a war). Wilhelm entertained hopes of a Hohenzollern restoration when Hitler came to power and the Crown Prince was a guest at Hitler's "coronation" as Chancellor at the Garrison Church, Potsdam in February 1933 with an empty seat reserved for the absent Kaiser.
However although Hitler was keen to stress his continuity with the pre-Weimar period he had no intention of restoring the monarchy since there was only room for one absolute ruler in Germany. Disillusion and disgust with Hitler and the Nazis soon set in with Wilhelm and his family particularly after the so-called Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 especially occasioned by the murders of General von Schleicher, Hitler's immediate predecessor as Chancellor, and his wife, who had been close friends of the Kaiser.
Wilhelm was also appalled by Kristallnacht in November 1938, despite sharing Hitler's anti-semitic prejudices. Wilhelm died at Doorn on 4 June 1941, 18 days before the invasion of Soviet Russia, at the age of 82.
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Article 231, the War Guilt Clause, of the Treaty of Versailles is highly suspect.
If it was blatantly obvious to the whole world that Germany was to blame for the First World War then surely there would have been no need for a War Guilt Clause.
It seems that Article 231 was added precisely because it was not blatantly obvious to the world at large that Germany was to blame.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 15
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
Wasn't it just not blatently obvious to the Germans? (As WWII demonstrates....)
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 16
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
There is a possibility that the Kaiser was brain damaged - it is mentioned in Prof Sheffield's book.
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Interesting point Colquhoun.
It's believed that mental disabilities were rife among European royalty at the time.
For example Wilhelm's cousins, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and King George V of Great Britain, both also showed signs of possible mental retardation.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 18
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Any real evidence of such a thing ?
Merely someone trying to give a clever opinion I would suspect.
Basically, returning to the thread proper, The Kaiser did wonder whether the whole avalanche could be stopped but was told by his General Staff that too much chaos would result. The whole thing took on its own momentum, but could have been stopped if the German general Staff had said stop.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Article 231, the War Guilt Clause, of the Treaty of Versailles is highly suspect.
If it was blatantly obvious to the whole world that Germany was to blame for the First World War then surely there would have been no need for a War Guilt Clause.
It seems that Article 231 was added precisely because it was not blatantly obvious to the world at large that Germany was to blame.Â
In fact nowhere in the Versailles Treaty does it say that Germany was solely to blame for causing WWI. Article 231 states that Germany "and her allies" meaning Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire (which were both dismembered by accompanying treaties to Versailles) and Bulgaria were to blame for causing WWI and the attendant damage. This clause was needed to establish a legal claim to reparations although Germany had levied harsh reparations on France in the Treaty of Frankfurt which ended the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 and on Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Ltovsk in 1918 despite the fact that Germany had invaded both countries and it was they who had suffered the greater loss.
What is seldom quoted is Article 232 immediately following it which limited German liability to pay reparations. According to Margaret Macmillan both clauses were the work of a young American lawyer named John Foster Dulles who also helped draft the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951 which settled the remaining issues with Japan after WWII and went on to become Eisenhower's Secretary of State.
Wilson loftily waived claims for reparations on behalf of the US but insisted, as did his successors, that Britain and France should repay their war debts to the US in full. There is no evidence that reparations (which were never fully paid) had any effect on the German economy apart from when the Weimar Government tried to cancel their debt by printing money which triggered hyper-inflation.
Once that was resolved in 1923 Germany went on to enjoy an economic boom. The French economist, Etienne Mantoux, in his "Economic Consequences of Mr Keynes" argues that the payment of reparations led to an export-led boom. Certainly both Germany and the USA prospered in the 1920s whilst the economies of both Britain and France languished.
Britain and France paid out more in the repayment of war debt to the US than they received in the form of reparations from Germany and Germany received more in the form of loans and grants from the US than it paid out in reparations to Britain and France.
Certainly reparations distorted the international payments system and the collapse of the US economy beginning in 1929 for separate reasons trigerred a similar economic catastrophe in Germany which brought the Nazis to power.
In the circumstances of 1919 it was obvious that "Germany and her allies" had brought about the war since it was they who had committed the first aggressive acts. What was more shocking though was the fact that Germany had continued war long after the hopes of any victory were rationally impossible and had even increased its severity such as beginning unrestricted submarine warfare which brought America into the war thus eventually enabling the Western Allies
to break the deadlock.
Contrary to Nazi propaganda nowhere in the Versailles Treaty does it state that the German people caused WWI (although it is true that the burden of reparations fell on them). Anyway because of the economic crisis Germany stopped paying reparations altogether in 1930, 3 years before Hitler came to power. The Nazis were not so much miffed by the fact that Germany had caused WWI but by the fact that she had lost it.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Re: Message 19.
Allan,
I had prepared all the threads that we have passed in the last three years about the subject, but was rather reticent to reply to this thread because my computer was slowed down by a virus, but now it seems to be OK again.
I feel a bit uncomfortable among erudites as you and Mutatis Mutandis, but will nevertheless try to give my opinion. Coincidentally I had started on a French messageboard a thread as if the Germans were predestinated in 1871 for the later wars and had just yesterday a new reply about the Fischer, Winkler, Rohl, von Krockow Sonderweg in which this Sonderweg is blamed as rubbish from left wing German historians as to expand to the Hitler regime of the thirties.
I replied to this "Duc de Raguse" the same as you mentioned in the last part of your message.
Will see how I can tomorrow enter the discussion to add something to the debate.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 21
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008
Sonderweg is blamed as rubbish from left wing German historians as to expand to the Hitler regime of the thirties.Â
Hello Paul
Yes - this is a recurring feature - and not just in Germany.
Because of the subsequent Second World War - which, understandably, in many ways has been linked to the First World War - it has become a simplistic deduction in some people's minds to portray Imperial Germany as some sort of 'proto-Nazi state'.
This perception seriously compromises an objective analysis of the condition and motives of the rulers of Germany at the time. This 'them-and-us', 'yah-boo', 'cowboys-and-indians', 'goodies-and-baddies' style of history also conveniently precludes an objective critique of the rulers of the Entente Powers.
regards
VizzerLink to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 22
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008
(eg, poor old Catholics weren't to blame for the Gunpowder plot, and even if they did it, they had been Soooooo hard done by so of COURSE they were entitled to butcher the government and the members of parliament plus a kilometre of London folk as well...,like the Protestants in Catholic countries weren't!)Â
Refreshing to see somebody approaching something with an open mind, willing to question the facts and analyse the myths that the Establishment has fed us over the generations.
Good one!Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 23
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008
So an open mind would think the Gunpowder plot a Good Thing? Which bit of what I wrote isn't true? (genuine question!)
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 24
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008
Eliza -
I always assume that all of your statements are in the true column - however SOME people might think that another Gunpowder plot might be useful - before the Catholic Bishops are interrogated over their "fundamentalist" teaching in their schools - shades of pre 1829... that is as opposed to the same teaching at Muslim schools ??? or shall I be called to account for racism ???Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 25
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008
Because of the subsequent Second World War - which, understandably, in many ways has been linked to the First World War - it has become a simplistic deduction in some people's minds to portray Imperial Germany as some sort of 'proto-Nazi state'.
This perception seriously compromises an objective analysis of the condition and motives of the rulers of Germany at the time. This 'them-and-us', 'yah-boo', 'cowboys-and-indians', 'goodies-and-baddies' style of history also conveniently precludes an objective critique of the rulers of the Entente Powers.Â
Possibly, but the Third Reich did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of the Second Reich. Germany under Hohenzollern leadership was a creation of war - against Denmark in 1864, against Austria in 1866 and against France in 1870-1. It is true that there was an elected Reichstag (although under a qualified and selective franchise) but the government was not accountable to it, it had no power over foreign affairs and defence and even the social democrats supported the demands from Bismarck and his successors for increased military spending and longer miltary service with little resistance so in reality Germany was not a parliamentary democracy in the sense that Britain was or France after 1871.
Anti-semitism was not a creation of Adolf Hitler and was rife in the Second Reich. Bismarck mounted anti-semitic campaigns and passed Jewish disability laws in the 1870s & 1880s as part of the effort to blame the Jews for economic recessions and divert attention away from the government's responsibility.
It may be simplistic but there are often bad people who achieve positions of power and who believe that complicated issues can be solved by the use of force rather than diplomacy and this was just as true in 1914 as it was in 1939. Despite the moral equivalence that infects modern liberalism which presupposes that foreigners can do no worse than your own side it is even more absurd to suppose that WWI was some natural catastrophe that overwhelmed a hitherto peaceful Europe in the summer of 1914 in the same way that Krakatoa overwhelmed Java in 1883.
Wars are the result of conscious decisions taken by individuals well in advance of their commencement. They require meticulous planning, organisation and finance. These elements were all present to a degree in Germany prior to 1914 that is unequalled by any other European state.
The German diplomatic archives were shredded in the 1920s in an effort to perpetuate the myth (which the Nazis clung onto) of German innocence in the origins of WWI but enough remained for the Italian diplomatic historian, Luigi Albertini, in his ground-breaking "The Origins of the War of 1914" published in 1952 and Fritz Fischer (hardly a cowboy or prejudiced against Germany) in his two volumes, "Germany's Aims in the First World War" published in 1967 and "War of Illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914" to lay the blame at Germany's door (or rather that of its High Command).
The current historical consensus surrounding Germany's responsibility for WWI is derived from a through study of the existing evidence and does not depend on anti- German prejudice or a victors' view of the past. As far as the Triple Entente powers were concerned they had nothing to gain from war and everything to lose. Britain had a tiny volunteer army used for fighting colonial wars which had received a bloody nose in South Africa and was still digesting the most comprehensive military reforms in 40 years. In France a great gulf of suspicion had opened up between the army and the civilian government in the wake of the Dreyfus Affair with each hostile and intolerant of the other. Russia was economically backward and had suffered an enormous defeat both on land and sea in 1905 (which had encouraged the German High Command to think that the comprehensive military defeat of Russia was possible) which had triggered widespread social unrest.
However in the end it comes back to individuals rather than social and economic forces or grand strategy. David Fromkin, in his excellent distillation of current historical thinking on the origins of WWI, "Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914" (pub.2004) which I would recommend to anyone wishing to find out more on this topic, has the following piece in his chapter entitled "Germany's War":
"It was Moltke [Chief of the German General Staff] who wanted a war against Russia and France. He had always held back - or had been held back - from initiating such a war in past crises because the circumstances never had been quite right. Everything had to be in place: the Kaiser's authority had to be on the wane, Austrian participation had to be assured, and Russia had to look like the aggressor. Suddenly, toward the end of July 1914, all did fall into place. Moltke leaped at the chance; he saw that his hour had come, and seized it...
He could not have done it had he not represented a force bigger than himself. He represented the Prussian Junker officer caste whose militarisation of German life led to the war. Germany's militarist culture had been identified in 1914 as the cause of the coming war by, among others, Colonel House [Woodrow Wilson's chief diplomatic adviser]."
It was this Prussian Junker officer caste which, along with the industrialists and bankers, had promoted the war and refused to accept defeat until social and economic chaos overwhelmed Germany and that remained in place after 1918, negating the Weimar Republic making it "a democracy without democrats". It was they who made a Faustian pact with Hitler in 1933 and again in 1934 (shortly before the Night of the Long Knives) to eradicate the shame and disgrace of 1918-19 and achieve the mastery in Europe which they had signally failed to do in 1914.
The almost total destruction of the Wehrmacht in 1944-5 and Hitler's brutal revenge on the aristocratic elite that had brought and sustained him in power following the July Bomb Plot enabled Germany (at least that part not under Soviet occupation) to start with a clean sheet after WWII and bourgeois democracy to take root and flourish where it had failed to do after 1918.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 26
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
"I always assume that all of your statements are in the true column "
Me too!!
"before the Catholic Bishops are interrogated over their "fundamentalist" teaching in their schools - shades of pre 1829... that is as opposed to the same teaching at Muslim schools ??? or shall I be called to account for racism ???"
I must confess I don't know about this issue at all, so had better not comment on it (though complete ignorance of a topic does not usually prevent me, as my OH frequently points out acidly!)Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 27
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
AllanD - thank you very much for your post, which I shall definitely 'archive' for any essay my son has to write on the origins of either of the world wars.
I have to say that one book I have been reading on the origins points out that it is the duty of soldiers to tell their governments how best to win any war they might get involved in - hence the Schlieffen plan, timings re enemy mobilisation, timings re increasing strength of enemies, and so on. But the tragedy in Imperial Germany was that it was the soldiers who dictated policy, and their 'natural policy' was to fight a victorious war - irrespective of whether it was actually a good idea politically (let alone morally!) to do so.
In respect of 'proto-Nazism', how badly (by the then standards, if nothing else) did the Germans behave in those territories they invaded/marched through? My only recollection is someone challenging one of the German (generals?) about what they were doing to the Belgians, saying 'History will judge you', and being chillingly told 'WE will write the histories'.....Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 28
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
In respect of 'proto-Nazism', how badly (by the then standards, if nothing else) did the Germans behave in those territories they invaded/marched through?Â
Badly, but there is a distinction in degree. Nazi Germany planned large-scale ethnic cleansing of Poland and western Russia, to repopulate these areas with German settlers. It wanted only the land, not the people.
The German Empire of 1914 was substantially different in that the populations of the occupied territories were themselves regarded as a valuable addition to the state, not only the land. In this it extended the spirit of the Congress of Vienna and its curious trade in "souls" as well as land.
If German soldiers behaved badly in 14-18, this was in part because a psychosis existed about the possibility of an insurgency, "franc-tireurs" in the jargon of the time. (That went back to 1870, when the same fears existed.) The army behaved brutally to show who was the boss, and reacted with indiscriminate killing and destruction to mere rumors of shooting incidents. But on a policy level, there was a big difference.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Actually Germany had planned the absorption of Russian Poland into the Reich in 1914 and marked it out as an area for German settlement. WWI did mark the ratcheting-up of "frightfulness" in warfare particularly as regards the making of deliberate war against civilians in the form of random reprisal killings and the deliberate destruction of civilian property in occupied areas and much of this was initiated by Germany as deliberate policy to terrify the local population into submission and not simply the random acts of soldiers on the ground.
It is true that Germany (or Prussia, its predecessor state) did not originate these forms of warfare. The French in the Peninsular Campaign had carried out reprisal executions of Spanish civilians (made notable in pictures by Goya) in response to guerilla attacks (although as with Germany in both WWI & WWII this made the civilian population less not more cooperative). The deliberate destruction of civilian property had been carried out in the US Civil War, most notably in Sherman's March through Georgia.
The Prussian Army (although effectively German as most of its confederate allies fought alongside Prussia) carried out both these actions during its invasion of France in 1870-1 and reports of them rapidly shifted British public opinion from sympathy with Prussia, upon whom Napoleon III had foolishly declared war, to sympathy with the French.
However the German Army, particularly on its march through Belgium in August 1914, which had brought Britain into the war undoubtedly raised this form of warfare to a higher and more savage level. The worst atrocity was undoubtedly the deliberate burning of Louvain, including its irreplaceable mediaeval library, on 26 August 1914. This was accompanied by the deliberate execution of civilians and here are some eye-witness accounts of those executions and the behaviour of the German Army towards the civilian population as it marched through Belgium:
Of course many of these atrocities became embroidered and extended into hyperbole by publicists in both Britain and France - there was no evidence that German soldiers ever bayoneted new-born babies for example - but that does not mean that they did not rest on a solid basis of fact. This reprisal killing of civilians was to become a particular feature of German-occupied Europe in WWII and was most notable in the massacres at Tulle and Oradour-sur-Glane by the SS Reich Division in June 1944 in their bid to get from Southern France to Normandy to engage the invading Allied armies but it was by no means original to the Nazis.
However it was the burning of Louvain, carried out on the orders of the German military commander, that had the greatest effect and which can be compared to the bombing of Rotterdam in 1940. To an intellectiual elite in both Britain and France (and America) steeped in the idea of a European culture it must have had an even more devastating effect that a country that had produced Durer, Bach and Beethoven could have been guilty of such wanton destruction that was unequalled since the fall of the Roman Empire. After this, it was not simply a propaganda ploy to characterise Germans as "Huns".
Here is a famous report of the event by the American journalist, Richard Harding Davis, which appeared in "The New York Tribune" on 31 August 1914 and provoked American sympathies for the Allies and against Germany long before the "Lusitania" sinking:
In one of his most telling passages he states:
"Money can never restore Louvain. Great architects, dead these six hundred years, made it beautiful, and their handiwork belonged to the world. With torch and dynamite the Germans have turned these masterpieces into ashes, and all the Kaiser's horses and all his men cannot bring them back again."
It was this association of the Germans with philistinism and barbarity that proved most damning and negated their claims to represent the interests of a new European order.
Germany also initiated new forms of warfare in WWI. The naval bombardments of Hartlepool, Scarborough and Great Yarmouth in 1914-15 had no purpose but to cause civilian casualties an disrupt everyday life as these ports had no military significance. The Germans were the first to use poison gas at the 2nd Battle of Ypres in April 1915 (although this was later matched by the Allies). The Germans were also the first to employ the aerial bombardment of civilian targets on civilian targets not only in the form of the airship raids on London and the South-East from 1915-17 but also using Gotha bombers each carrying an 1100lb bomb, first on Folkestone (the ferry port from where soldiers were shipped to France) where 300 people were killed (184 of them civilian) on 25 May 1917 before shifting to London three weeks later where there were 600 casualties including 46 children from an infants' school.
This merely served to confirm to Allied public opinion the "beastliness" of the Germans and how in their desperate search for military supremacy they were prepared to go beyond the norms of civilised behaviour but more importantly a precedent had been set for the devastating strategic bombing vcarried out on both sides in WWII (the Allies did not have the technical capacity to respond until the Handley-Page bomber was developed but would have carried out a raid on Berlin had the Armistice not intervened).
It is significant to note that the concept of "war crimes" was first developed in WWI not WWII and the provision for war crimes trials does occur in the Versailles Treaty and several did take place. However they were held in Germany as part of the German judicial process and in the circumstances after the war the juries either acquitted the defendants or gave them trivial sentences.
It was Roosevelt who pointed to the WWI precedent as offering grounds for holding war crimes trials after WWII (Churchill was initially rather dubious about their practicality) but in view of the unsatisfactory outcomes of the post-WWI trials it was decided to substitute Allied tribunals in place of the domestic German judicial system.
The behaviour of the Prussian Army in 1870-1 and the tactics and strategy of all the German Armed Forces during WWI can be explained by, in Fromkin's phrase, "the militarisation of German culture" in which the individual served the interests of the state and any means were justified in the pursuit of military and political supremacy. This also helps to explain the receptiveness of the German people after WWI to Nazi ideology which incorporated racial superiority into these ideas.
In each conflict the level of atrocity was ratcheted up by the German military so that WWII should be not be seen as an aberration but part of a natural progression. It also helps to explain why there was continued support for WWI amongst British and French public opinion long after the conflict had subsided into stalemate and slaughter since it was seen not so much as a clash of Great Power ambitions but as a clash of cultures and civilisation versus barbarity in a similar way to how WWII was to be viewed.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 30
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Allan - yet again, many thanks. Another one for my 'archive'!
May I ask if it was the destruction of the library at Louvain that elicited the brutal 'We shall write the histories' comment I wonder? It would be apt,I think.
Another point may be that in the Franco-Prussian war, both nations were belligerents (however much Bismark suckered NIII in!), whereas Belgium was an officially neutral and officially territorially inviolate nation. Surely this would make it even more heinous for an invading army to treat its civilians and property so badly as the invading Germans did? From what I understand, prior to invading, the German government requested passage of their troops through Belgium, in order to complete the Schlieffen manouvre, but the Belgian government refused the request. Presumably (?) the Germans then felt this 'unreasonable' refusal gave them carte blance to do what they liked???
I do think, overall, that I am undergoing somethign ofa revision about my opinions about the first world war. Hitherto, I've been more of a mind to think that yes, WWII was a 'war for civilisation' - ie, a war we HAD to fight, or let Nazism cloud Europe for decades possibly - whereas WWI was merely a whole bunch of aristocratic soldiers bored with a hundred years of peace, and inventing reasons for a dust-up. But NOT a 'war for civilisation' - and that the 'beastly Hun' stuff was just rather weakly based British propaganda. I think, from what I am reading here, that that was not quite the case. OK, WW1 wasn't 'as bad' as WW2 from a 'battle for civilisation' point of view, but it was still a degree of it.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 31
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Dear Eliza
Despite a web search I am unable to source your quotation but it sounds appropriate enough to me. The answer to all your questions in your second paragraph is "yes". It is interesting to note that violation of Belgian neutrality not only provided the reason for British entry into the war but virtually united British public opinion in support of the war.
Gladstone had sought assurances from Napoleon III in 1870 that Belgian neutrality would be respected and the Germans had been careful to avoid entering either Belgium or Luxembourg (which were both invaded in 1914) when they invaded France in 1870. Even in 1914 they avoided occupying Holland (although it had featured in earlier versions of the Schlieffen Plan) which provided a refuge for the Kaiser in 1918 but they had no compunction in adding it to the list in 1940 - another illustration of the "ratchet" effect of successive conflicts.
I think your revised view is a clearer and, imo, a more correct one. Of course there is always the danger of hyperbole. The Nazi regime marked an exponential change from anything that had gone before. It was, in Churchill's words (uttered as early as May 1940):
"a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime."
but that tyranny had a genesis and a descent.
Our ambivalence towards the First World War stems from the reaction, after a brief period of patriotic rejoicing, that set in among the Western Allies not only to the slaughter that had occurred but to the militarisation of society and the increase in the powers of the state. This was represented by a whole slew of pacifist and anti-war literature and drama as well as movements such as The Peace Pledge Union.
This was to have an echo in the 1960s when there was a reaction to the nuclear weapons build-up occasioned by the Cold War such as represented by the play (and film) "For King and Country" about the execution of a British deserter and the musical "Oh! What A Lovely War!" (based partly on Alan Clark's book about WWI Generals "The Donkeys"). It was obviously easier, even at the time distance, to portray WWI as a superfluous conflict and, by implication, identify Soviet Russia with the milder tyranny of Wilhelmine Germany rather than launch attacks on WWII which even the Left still accepted as a necessary struggle (despite the fact that there were incompetent generals in that war too and deserters, particularly in the Red Army, were shot in their hundreds of thousands and Churchill had characterised WWII, not WWI, as the "unnecessary war").
Oddly, this anti-miltarist reaction did not appear to affect Germany in the inter-war period, despite the fact that its losses were greater than any of the Western Allies. The most famous piece of German anti-war literature, Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" detailing the horror of the front-line trenches from the German side, as well as the Hollywood film version made in 1930, received a tepid response inside Germany before being banned altogether by the Nazis.
It seems that what bothered the German people about WWI was not so much its destructiveness and waste of human life but the fact of defeat and the loss of national pride and honour. It was this shame that the Nazis fed into pepetrating their own myth that the German Army had not been defeated in 1918 but merely betrayed by a collection of socialists, communists, pacifists and Jews at home.
The criticism of the way the war had been fought on the Allied side led to questioning whether the war should have been fought at all. This led to the war being seen as a kind of natural catastrophe for which no one government was responsible, or for which all were equally to blame. This ignored the fact that the German arms build-up was four times greater than that of its neighbours.
It also encouraged conspiracy theories such as that put forward by the US Senate inquiry in the 1930s which ascribed the cause of the war to arms companies seeking to make profits although how arms companies manufactured diplomatic crises or produced national war plans was left unexplained. Nevertheless such whimsical explanations for conflict resulted in the Neutrality Acts which made it difficult for the Roosevelt Administration to support Britain and China against Axis aggression until the passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941.
It was this misunderstanding of the causes of WWI that resulted in the appeasement policy pursued by Britain and France towards Germany after WWI that was to have such tragic and disastrous consequences. Any objective study of the events prior to 1914 would have shown that where Britain and France took a firm line and threatened the use of force, such as during the Agadir Crisis of 1912, Germany backed down and the crisis was resolved peacefully. However the events of 1914 caught the Western Powers unawares and they tried a conciliatory approach. Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, offered a Great Power Conference in London to resolve all outstanding European issues. Poincare and Viviani, the French President and Prime Minister, an on a visit to St Petersburg, urged the Russians to avoid provoking Germany or Austria.
As with a similar approach in 1938 this merely confirmed to the German High Command the military unpreparedness of the Western Allies and their unwillingness to fight and made war more, not less, likely. Of course there were mistakes, missteps and miscalculations on all sides which led to catastrophe as recited in Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" but as the historian Edmond Taylor has stated:
"The First World War killed fewer victims than the Second World War, destroyed fewer buildings, and uprooted millions instead of tens of millions - but in many ways it left even deeper scars both on the mind and on the map of Europe. The old world never recovered from the shock."Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 32
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Thank you - another one for my archive!
"It is interesting to note that violation of Belgian neutrality not only provided the reason for British entry into the war but virtually united British public opinion in support of the war."
So, for the Germans 'not a crime but a blunder'... though they didn't see it as the latter even.
Out of curiosity, is there a counter-factual scenario for how things might have played out if somehow Belgian neutrality HAD been respected by the Germans (even if only on a realpolitik basis, rather than a moral one!). Given that the Schlieffen plan wasn't even executed in full, with German troops NOT sweeping further west to encircle Paris (I understand this was to free up more German troops for the Eastern front?), was it actually necessary, from a military point of view, to march through Belgian?
How would Britain have reacted, I wonder, if 'only' France had been attacked?Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 33
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Re: Message 32 and 31.
Eliza,
I read Alan's post and saw no reason whatever that could break the house rules. You have added it to you archive, so you can judge about the content?
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Addendum to message 33.
OOPS it had to be "Allan". And now I am not sure anymore if it wasn't Mutatis Mutandis' post?
Warm regards again,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Re: Message 29.
Allan,
thank you very much for the links about Louvain (I am still reading them). And if you seek for the "home" you come to excellent sources about WWI. Thank you also for that.
As for WWII my mother and uncle were also cought from the cellars under the houses in Deinze by the Germans on Saturday 25 Mai 1940. People were used as living shield before the bridge because so-called civilians had shot on the German troops (Zivilisten haben geschossen), but in reality because they met serious resistance by the Chasseurs Ardennais (some elite group of the Belgian Army) from the other side of the Canal connected there with the Lys. 38 people were killed in the cross-fire before the bridge on the end of the market (have a 370 pages book by one of the family descendents of one of the casualties).
In the debate as about Germany's guilt for WWI I will add all the debates that we already have made here on the boards as I have done for the French messageboard. But will do it apart as I see that messages disappear from this thread.
Perhaps only one to start about the Fischer controversy, which makes an honest survey in my humble opinion. And it is now two years that I promised the readers to give a reply why I didn't agree with David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley about their book "the Peculiarities of German history" and the URL is in English Mods.
.
The books I am reading for the moment about the question are
on the thread of Mick mac about the languageborder of the Belgae in Ceasar's Gallia on the "Ancient and Archaeology".
To come back on the Germans (and I speak fluently German and have a lot of German friends and have nothing against them morally, even not against those of the WWII and WWI era, while I discuss it here only as a matter of history to find the truth about certain events and attitudes). But up to now I read a lot about this question and nearly all from Germans as a Fischer, a Winkler, a Vehlen, a Count von Krockow (especially this one, as he isn't blamed as Fischer (Fischer was even not allowed to leave Germany for conferences in the US by the Kanzler Ehrard (if I recall it well))). Or by historians of German descent as a Röhl in Britain or a Fritz Stern in the US.
And in all this readings there is one leading thread: that by the inheritance of Prussia, and by that extended to the other Länder there was a strong military component in Wilhelminian Germany that together with Wilhelm II were thinking about their place in the sun and not by diplomacy but by war. The Wilhelminian Empire was not a democratic state as France and Britain or the US, but a state were the bourgeoisie was brought in the service of the state and not an entity apart as in France, Britain and also Belgium. I don't agree with Blackbourn and Eley and I will try to prove it.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
It was me, but I too am at a loss as to see what offence has been caused, except perhaps that of tediousness. I did make an unfavourable comparison between public opinion in Germany and the Allied countries towards WWI in the inter-war period as well as making some unfavourable references to anti-war films of the 1960s but if those were the reasons then, to use an old cliche, it is "political correctness gone mad".
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is notorious for pulling messages that contradict their house agenda but it is usually on their news sites. However this is not the first time this has happened to me even on this site. The first time it occurred I asked for the reasons my post had been pulled but received no response. Common courtesy seems to be an unknown concept to those in receipt of the licence payers' subsidy.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 37
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Third Reich did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of the Second ReichÂ
This is precisely my point.
It’s a bit like saying that Thatcherism did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of Keynesianism. Keynes was British and so was Thatcher ergo Keynes must have been a proto-Thatcherite.
Germany under Hohenzollern leadership was a creation of war - against Denmark in 1864, against Austria in 1866 and against France in 1870-1.Â
The losers of these wars, of course, had all violated international treaties and/or aggressed against Prussia.
It is true that there was an elected Reichstag (although under a qualified and selective franchise) but the government was not accountable to itÂ
The UK Parliament was also elected under a qualified and selective franchise. Neither was the unelected House of Lords in any way accountable to the elected House of Commons until the Parliament Act of 1911.
even the social democrats supported the demands from Bismarck and his successors for increased military spending and longer military serviceÂ
Similarly the UK Labour Party, not only supported, but actually promoted and oversaw the UK’s acquisition of nuclear weaponry.
Anti-semitism was not a creation of Adolf Hitler and was rife in the Second Reich.Â
And was also rife in the Russian Empire, and in the French Republic, and in the USA etc.
Bismarck mounted anti-semitic campaigns and passed Jewish disability laws in the 1870s & 1880s as part of the effort to blame the Jews for economic recessions and divert attention away from the government's responsibility.Â
Do you have an example of such a campaign or any such ‘disability laws’ you can provide us with Allan?
If anything Bismarck was reviled by anti-Jewish elements in Germany for supposedly being in league with Jews against Christian Europe. This was during the ‘Kulturkampf’ when Bismarck sought to establish the secular Protestant tradition of Prussia and Saxony as the basis for civil life in the new German empire as opposed to the Vatican-influenced Catholic model which existed in Bavaria etc. It were his opponents in the Catholic Party and others who saw such secularism as anathema and as an affront to Catholic Europe and who accused Bismarck of being a pro-Jewish anti-Christ.
Wars are the result of conscious decisions taken by individuals well in advance of their commencement. They require meticulous planning, organisation and finance. These elements were all present to a degree in Germany prior to 1914 that is unequalled by any other European state.Â
Maybe that was true of Prussia in the 1860s. In other words 40 years prior to the era in question.
A look at the massive expansion of the UK navy in the 1900s, and also the single-minded and ruthless determination of the French Army to out-Prussian the German Army, exposes the myth of ‘militaristic Imperial Germany versus peace-loving Rest of the World’ to be just that.
The German diplomatic archives were shredded in the 1920sÂ
In order to substantiate this assertion can you provide details of exactly when this was done, where and on whose orders?
Luigi Albertini, in his ground-breaking "The Origins of the War of 1914" published in 1952 and Fritz Fischer (hardly a cowboy or prejudiced against Germany) in his two volumes, "Germany's Aims in the First World War" published in 1967 and "War of Illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914" to lay the blame at Germany's door (or rather that of its High Command).Â
Note that both those books were published after 1945 and before 1975.
During those rehabilitation decades, immediately following the Second World War, Italian and German historians were keen to prove that their countries and societies (including their history departments) had broken with the past. The fashion then was to consider the whole history of those 2 countries, from unification in the mid-nineteenth century through to 1945, as some sort of 'logical progression'. Characters such as Cavour, Garibaldi, and Bismarck etc were often derided at being proto-fascists and proto-nazis.
The current historical consensus surrounding Germany's responsibility for WWI is derived from a through study of the existing evidence and does not depend on anti- German prejudice or a victors' view of the past.Â
There is no ‘historical consensus’ on this - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As far as the Triple Entente powers were concerned they had nothing to gain from war and everything to loseÂ
Nothing to gain like Alsace-Lorraine, Namibia, Tanganyika, Togoland, Samoa and Tsingtao etc. Everything to lose like no longer being embarrassed by Germany’s excellent social welfare example and therefore setting Europe up for the severe class-based political struggles of the 1920s and 1930s etc.
Britain had a tiny volunteer army used for fighting colonial wars which had received a bloody nose in South AfricaÂ
A bloody nose from the even tinier volunteer Boer army.
In France a great gulf of suspicion had opened up between the army and the civilian government in the wake of the Dreyfus AffairÂ
Anti-semitism in the glorious French Army – who’d have thought it?
Russia was economically backward and had suffered an enormous defeat both on land and sea in 1905 (which had encouraged the German High Command to think that the comprehensive military defeat of Russia was possible)Â
If true - it's not a strange thought for them to have, really, considering that Japan had indeed comprehensively defeated Russia in war.
It was this Prussian Junker officer caste which, along with the industrialists and bankers, had promoted the war Â
And the UK officer class, industrialists and bankers were opposed to war?
to eradicate the shame and disgrace of 1918-19 and achieve the mastery in Europe which they had signally failed to do in 1914.Â
As did the UK and French officer classes who also fail to ‘achieve the mastery of Europe’ in 1914. The French officer class, however, did somewhat eradicate the shame of 1870 – but at some cost needless to say.
Actually Germany had planned the absorption of Russian Poland into the Reich in 1914 and marked it out as an area for German settlement.Â
Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?
WWI did mark the ratcheting-up of "frightfulness" in warfare particularly as regards the making of deliberate war against civiliansÂ
So the British had left the Boer civilians well alone 15 years previously then?
this was initiated by Germany as deliberate policy to terrify the local population into submission and not simply the random acts of soldiers on the ground.Â
Can you give any evidence to support this?
there was no evidence that German soldiers ever bayoneted new-born babies for example - but that does not mean that they did not rest on a solid basis of fact.Â
Read that back to yourself Allan.
Even you can see that it’s self-contradictory double-talk. Chris Morris hoodwinked the radio dj ‘Dr’ Fox into say some similar sounding nonsense during the ‘Brass Eye’ series a few years ago.
However it was the burning of Louvain, carried out on the orders of the German military commander, that had the greatest effect and which can be compared to the bombing of Rotterdam in 1940. To an intellectiual elite in both Britain and France (and America) steeped in the idea of a European cultureÂ
The bombing or Rotterdam? Was that a bit like the bombing of Hamburg, the bombing of Cologne, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Caen, the bombing of Monte Cassino, the bombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki etc?
Germany also initiated new forms of warfare in WWI. The naval bombardments of Hartlepool, Scarborough and Great Yarmouth in 1914-15 had no purpose but to cause civilian casualties an disrupt everyday life as these ports had no military significance.Â
You might want to make a study of the activities of the UK, French and US etc navies in the 18th and 19th centuries to appreciate just how incorrect that statement is.
It is significant to note that the concept of "war crimes" was first developed in WWI not WWIIÂ
The concept of war crimes is as old as war itself.
The modern concept of international military law, however, stems from the Franco-Austrian War in the 1850s and the development of the Geneva Conventions. The later Hague Conventions were in part also prompted by the general disgust in Europe at British brutality in South Africa during the Boer War.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Addendum to message 35.
Allan and the others,
only for my own summary and to quote from it if necessary:
if some one understands German: type the Fischer Kontroverse in Google to have a suvey about that dispute that was as heated as the "Historikerstreit" in the 19th century Germany
Germany's Guilt
Was Austria-Hungary at fault fro the Great War?
I'am aware that the Versailles treaty
Cause of First World War
Germany 1815-1933
Revolutions of 1848 start of German tragedy?
The Fischer controversy
? thread=1983991
? thread=1984012
How did the Nazis came to power in Germany?
? thread=2561679
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. I don't understand why the last URL's don't appear in blue. I made no fault and even by making more space between some some appear in blue but not the last ones even with a lot of space????Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 39
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Addendum to message 38.
I don't know what happens on the boards. Only "Germany's Guilt" works all the oter ones although they appear in blue givethe starting window of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ history messageboards.
Try again for one:
Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 40
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Lots more interesting things to read here - I shall keep them all to ponder and discuss!
A few points from Vizzer strike me as possibly answerable -
"It’s a bit like saying that Thatcherism did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of Keynesianism. Keynes was British and so was Thatcher ergo Keynes must have been a proto-Thatcherite."
I would describe Thatcherism as a REACTION against and a refutation of Keynensiasm, not as an EXTENSION, so I don't feel this is an accurate analogy.
"The UK Parliament was also elected under a qualified and selective franchise. Neither was the unelected House of Lords in any way accountable to the elected House of Commons until the Parliament Act of 1911."
Qualified and selective the franchise might have been, but isn't it fair to say that the government itself was drawn from the House of Commons, and therefore its acts and decisions were determined by the votes of MPs - was this the case in the Second Reich's Reichstag? Did the government have any right of veto over the Reichstag's voted decisions? But perhaps the loyal Reichstage never opposed the German government anyway? As to the House of Lords, there was clear precedent in the Great Reform Bill of l832 that the will of the House of Commons prevailed over the will of the Lords (if indirectly by the king threatening to swamp the Lords with pro-government new peers)(which I think is what happened again in l911?).
But it would be very interesting to hear more about just what powers the elected assemblies had to direct government actions in the second reich. However, even if they did, then IF Imperial Germany was responsible for the war, doesn't that just extend 'culpability' for WW1 right down into the German electorate (such as it was), rather than having it contained in the upper eschelons of society? Doesn't that just make things worse for the Germans, giving them less excuse to evade culpability (if Germany is culpable, of course!)
"The losers of these wars (Denmark, Austria, France), of course, had all violated international treaties and/or aggressed against Prussia."
I'd be interested to hear more on this point. Also any comments on whether governments who let themselves be 'provoked' into war by the likes of Bismark have to take any blame for those wars, or whether the ultimate blame lies with the provoker???
"A look at the massive expansion of the UK navy in the 1900s, and also the single-minded and ruthless determination of the French Army to out-Prussian the German Army, exposes the myth of ‘militaristic Imperial Germany versus peace-loving Rest of the World’ to be just that."
Again, isn't this the question of reaction - ie, the question is, who did it first!
"Nothing to gain like Alsace-Lorraine, Namibia, Tanganyika, Togoland, Samoa and Tsingtao etc. Everything to lose like no longer being embarrassed by Germany’s excellent social welfare example and therefore setting Europe up for the severe class-based political struggles of the 1920s and 1930s etc."
Well, A-L was a question of RE-gaining (and the issue of whether A-L was 'naturally' French or German I know is itself contentious and was disucssed in some detail on the autumn thread here about WW1). As to the German colonies, did France or England object to Germany helping themselves to the last bits of Africa in the first place? And wasn't Germany overt about intenting to take over the French colonies if France was defeated yet again?
So far as I know (which may not be enough!), England was very admiring of Germany's excellent social welfare system, and its overall teutonic industriousness and hard work - though yes, it was already worried that the german economy was outstripping the British one.
"And the UK officer class, industrialists and bankers were opposed to war?"
Surely few in the UK, ordinary people included, were opposed to a war against a Germany that invaded a neutral territory, or did you mean earlier than that?
"The bombing or Rotterdam? Was that a bit like the bombing of Hamburg, the bombing of Cologne, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Caen, the bombing of Monte Cassino, the bombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki etc?"
Er, which of these happened first?! Whilst the morality of just what it is 'OK' to do by way of retaliation is debateable, how much debate can be given to the morality of whoever strikes first? Two wrongs may not make a right, but the FIRST wrong definitely never makes a right!
"The later Hague Conventions were in part also prompted by the general disgust in Europe at British brutality in South Africa during the Boer War."
To me, what is significant about British atrocities against the Boers is precisely that such atrocities did NOT become 'the norm' for British troops in subsequent wars. It is, I believe, vital to understand that distinction. Yes, Britain might have been the first to invent concentration camps, but they did NOT continue with them, and, most essentially, they did NOT evolve them into deliberate extermination camps as the Nazis did.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 41
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Hello Eliza
"It’s a bit like saying that Thatcherism did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of Keynesianism. Keynes was British and so was Thatcher ergo Keynes must have been a proto-Thatcherite."
I would describe Thatcherism as a REACTION against and a refutation of Keynensiasm, not as an EXTENSION, so I don't feel this is an accurate analogy.Â
That was the point of the analogy.
Nazism was a reaction against aristocratic imperialism and bourgeois liberal democracy. It was not an extension of them.
If Nazi Germany was some sort 'Imperial Germany Mark II' then Adolph Hitler would have re-intsated the Kaiser at the earliest opportunity. Even after the Kaiser found himself under Hitler's jurisdiction, following the German occupation of the Netherlands in 1940, Hitler made no overtures towards his former Commander-In-Chief.
"The UK Parliament was also elected under a qualified and selective franchise. Neither was the unelected House of Lords in any way accountable to the elected House of Commons until the Parliament Act of 1911."
Qualified and selective the franchise might have been, but isn't it fair to say that the government itself was drawn from the House of Commons, and therefore its acts and decisions were determined by the votes of MPsÂ
UK governments were often dominated by members of the House of Lords throughout the 19th century and into the 20th century.
was this the case in the Second Reich's Reichstag? Did the government have any right of veto over the Reichstag's voted decisions? But perhaps the loyal Reichstage never opposed the German government anyway? As to the House of Lords, there was clear precedent in the Great Reform Bill of l832 that the will of the House of Commons prevailed over the will of the Lords (if indirectly by the king threatening to swamp the Lords with pro-government new peers)(which I think is what happened again in l911?).
But it would be very interesting to hear more about just what powers the elected assemblies had to direct government actions in the second reich. Â
The constitution of Germany was incredibly similar to that of the UK at the time. If anything Germany can even be said to have been more democratic.
For example Germany had universal adult male suffrage which did not come in in the UK until after the First World War. The citizens of the various states also had the opportunity for representation in their national assemblies. No such national assemblies existed in Ireland, Scotland and Wales etc.
As with the UK, however, the Crown held all the trump cards and the government was dominated by the interests of the rich and powerful aristocracy and by big business.
However, even if they did, then IF Imperial Germany was responsible for the war, doesn't that just extend 'culpability' for WW1 right down into the German electorate (such as it was), rather than having it contained in the upper eschelons of society? Doesn't that just make things worse for the Germans, giving them less excuse to evade culpability (if Germany is culpable, of course!)Â
This way it could be said that the ordinary citizens of the UK were culpable for excesses of the Boer War etc. It would, of course, be a nonsense.
"The losers of these wars (Denmark, Austria, France), of course, had all violated international treaties and/or aggressed against Prussia."
I'd be interested to hear more on this point. Also any comments on whether governments who let themselves be 'provoked' into war by the likes of Bismark have to take any blame for those wars, or whether the ultimate blame lies with the provoker???Â
This is a very good question.
It seems that if one is predisposed to an anti-German bias then that person will damn the Germans if they do and damn the Germans if they don't.
If Germany is an aggressor - then they are condemned as aggressors. If they are aggressed against - then they 'provoked' it.
Similar to this are those anti-British elements who would say, for example, that Margaret Thatcher 'provoked' Argentina into invading the Falkland Islands in 1982. Some people will always paint historical events to suit their own agenda. It's a question of attitude.
"A look at the massive expansion of the UK navy in the 1900s, and also the single-minded and ruthless determination of the French Army to out-Prussian the German Army, exposes the myth of ‘militaristic Imperial Germany versus peace-loving Rest of the World’ to be just that."
Again, isn't this the question of reaction - ie, the question is, who did it first!Â
This would tend to assume that there is an agreed 'start date' to history. There isn't.
It could be said that the Prussian Army was so efficient in the 1860s because Prussia was determined not to relive the humiliation of the occupation of Berlin by French troops as had occurred in 1806. And so it goes on ad infinitum.
"Nothing to gain like Alsace-Lorraine, Namibia, Tanganyika, Togoland, Samoa and Tsingtao etc. Everything to lose like no longer being embarrassed by Germany’s excellent social welfare example and therefore setting Europe up for the severe class-based political struggles of the 1920s and 1930s etc."
Well, A-L was a question of RE-gaining (and the issue of whether A-L was 'naturally' French or German I know is itself contentious and was disucssed in some detail on the autumn thread here about WW1). As to the German colonies, did France or England object to Germany helping themselves to the last bits of Africa in the first place? And wasn't Germany overt about intenting to take over the French colonies if France was defeated yet again?Â
For the UK and France to criticise the relatively small German colonial empire is a case of pots and kettles beyond belief.
That said - I don't know of any evidence to support the suggestion that Germany was intending to take over French colonies. What we do know, however, is that the UK, France and Japan did indeed take over the German colonies.
So far as I know (which may not be enough!), England was very admiring of Germany's excellent social welfare system, and its overall teutonic industriousness and hard work - though yes, it was already worried that the german economy was outstripping the British one.Â
Far from being admiring - the UK establishment was embarrassed and jealous of the German social welfare system. Throughout the 1880s, 1890s and 1910s they tried to keep the ordinary people of the UK in ignorance of the reality of life for ordinary Germans. Even as late as 1909 Lloyd George's People's Budget was bitterly resisted and this led to a constitutional crisis.
It does not seem to have dawned on the UK establishment that one of the reasons why the German economy was outstipping the UK could have been because Germany had a decent social welfare system and thus had more contented workers while the UK did not.
"And the UK officer class, industrialists and bankers were opposed to war?"
Surely few in the UK, ordinary people included, were opposed to a war against a Germany that invaded a neutral territory, or did you mean earlier than that?Â
I meant in 1914.
There is no evidence to suggest that the UK officer class, industrialists and bankers etc were an more or any less keen on war than were their German counterparts.
"The bombing or Rotterdam? Was that a bit like the bombing of Hamburg, the bombing of Cologne, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Caen, the bombing of Monte Cassino, the bombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki etc?"
Er, which of these happened first?! Whilst the morality of just what it is 'OK' to do by way of retaliation is debateable, how much debate can be given to the morality of whoever strikes first? Two wrongs may not make a right, but the FIRST wrong definitely never makes a right!Â
True.
Let's not forget, however, that the UK air force was bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq with poison gas years before the bombing of Rotterdam.
"The later Hague Conventions were in part also prompted by the general disgust in Europe at British brutality in South Africa during the Boer War."
To me, what is significant about British atrocities against the Boers is precisely that such atrocities did NOT become 'the norm' for British troops in subsequent wars. It is, I believe, vital to understand that distinction. Yes, Britain might have been the first to invent concentration camps, but they did NOT continue with them,Â
The UK did indeed put civilians in concentration camps, during the Second World War, in the Isle of Man etc. They also used internment camps in Malaya and Kenya in the 1950s and in Northern Ireland in the 1970s etc.
they did NOT evolve them into deliberate extermination camps as the Nazis did.Â
This may be so, although, extermination camps run by Nazis, have nothing to do, of course, with Imperial Germany in 1914.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 42
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
"The constitution of Germany was incredibly similar to that of the UK at the time. If anything Germany can even be said to have been more democratic.
For example Germany had universal adult male suffrage which did not come in in the UK until after the First World War. The citizens of the various states also had the opportunity for representation in their national assemblies. No such national assemblies existed in Ireland, Scotland and Wales etc."
Germany was an autocracy in 1914. All power that mattered was concentrated in the Kaiser.
The Reichstag was a token parliment only -
It could reject money bills but not initiate legistaltion.
The Kaiser appointed the Chancellor at will, controlled foreign policy, controlled the military. The Kaiser appointed all the ministers.
In 1914 Germany merely had some the trappings of democracy without the substance and was for most practical purposes an autocracy.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 43
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 11th January 2008
The Third Reich did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of the Second Reich
Quoted from this message
This is precisely my point.
It’s a bit like saying that Thatcherism did not emerge in a vacuum and was in many ways a logical extension of Keynesianism. Keynes was British and so was Thatcher ergo Keynes must have been a proto-Thatcherite.Â
Except that between the Second and the Third Reichs was the Weimar Republic which was in contradistinction to both. The Nazi era was a positive reaction to the at least attempted democracy and an extension of the authoritarianism and militarism of the Wilhelmine period.
Germany under Hohenzollern leadership was a creation of war - against Denmark in 1864, against Austria in 1866 and against France in 1870-1.
Quoted from this message
The losers of these wars, of course, had all violated international treaties and/or aggressed against Prussia.Â
Really?? Was Denmark such a threat? The net result of all these wars however was the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership as well as an increase in German territory.
It is true that there was an elected Reichstag (although under a qualified and selective franchise) but the government was not accountable to it
Quoted from this message
The UK Parliament was also elected under a qualified and selective franchise. Neither was the unelected House of Lords in any way accountable to the elected House of Commons until the Parliament Act of 1911.Â
Actually virtually universal male household suffrage had prevailed in the UK since 1884. All UK governments from the 18th century onwards depended on the support of the majority of the House of Commons not the House of Lords (almost all Whig/Liberal Governments lacked a majority in the House of Lords). My point was that in Britain and France the government was accountable to the legislature. This was not the case in Imperial Germany where Chancellors and Ministers were appointed by the Kaiser and depended on his favour for their continuance in office.
Britain was in the throes of a constitutional crisis for two years to decide the balance of power between the Commons and the Lords (resolved eventually in favour of the Commons) involving two elections at a time when you imply the British Government was planning for war.
even the social democrats supported the demands from Bismarck and his successors for increased military spending and longer military service
Quoted from this message
Similarly the UK Labour Party, not only supported, but actually promoted and oversaw the UK’s acquisition of nuclear weaponry.Â
The point was not about the intellectual consistency, or otherwise, of the German Socialists but of the increasing unopposed militarisation of Imperial Germany.
Anti-semitism was not a creation of Adolf Hitler and was rife in the Second Reich.
Quoted from this message
And was also rife in the Russian Empire, and in the French Republic, and in the USA etc.Â
True, but there were orchestrated anti-semitic campaigns in the press as well as specifically anti-semitic parties.
Bismarck mounted anti-semitic campaigns and passed Jewish disability laws in the 1870s & 1880s as part of the effort to blame the Jews for economic recessions and divert attention away from the government's responsibility.
Quoted from this message
Do you have an example of such a campaign or any such ‘disability laws’ you can provide us with Allan?Â
You are right that Bismarck directed his attention more notably towards the Catholic Church whose followers were riddled with anti-semitism (it was no accident that the Nazi Party originated in Bavaria). However an anti-semitic campaign was mounted in newspapers favourable to Bismarck following the Kulturkampf (possibly to mend fences with the Catholics but more likely as a response to the economic recession that enveloped Europe at the end of the 1870s). In 1880, a nationwide campaign calling for the revocation of Jewish rights in the now united Germany gathered over a quarter of a million signatures. The Reichstag considered the demand and debated the "Jewish Problem".
You're right also that the disabilities were administrative not legal but considerable nonetheless. Goldhagen writes of this period:
"Despite their "emancipation", Jews furthermore continued to suffer all sorts of public, prominent, and highly meaningful disabilities that suggested to all in Germany that Jews were not really Germans, that they could not be trusted to be full members of society. The Germans' well-known and effective continuing exclusion of Jews from the institution most identified with German patriotism, the army's officer corps, and from the institutions that collectively guided, served, cared for, and governed the people, the civil service, especially the judiciary, sent a continuous, unmistakable signal to the German people that the Jews were really not Germans, but outsiders, not fit to take part in the sharing of power. Indeed these disabilities were so widespread and debilitating, enforced and even actively promoted by civil servants, judges and teachers, that one leading jurist desrcibed what effectively amounted to a partial rescission of emancipation as "the reversal of the Constitution by the administration"".
(Daniel Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust", 1996, pp. 73-4, pbk. edn.).
One of the main pro-Bismarck parties in the Reichstag, the Conservative Party, was explicitly anti-semitic and there was the malign influence of Adolf Stocker, the Court Chaplain, who was a virulent anti-semite who later came into conflict with Bismarck over the latter's private banker who was Jewish (despite Bismarck's own anti-semitic prejudices) and you're right that the anti-semitic hysteria rose to such a pitch that even Bismarck himself was seen as the willing tool of an all-embracing Jewish conspiracy.
A look at the massive expansion of the UK navy in the 1900s, and also the single-minded and ruthless determination of the French Army to out-Prussian the German Army, exposes the myth of ‘militaristic Imperial Germany versus peace-loving Rest of the World’ to be just that.Â
Except that the expansion of the naval building programme in Britain was in response to German naval expansion not in advance of it. The second half of your statement is slightly risible as there was nothing either single-minded or ruthless about the French Army prior to 1914 (except perhaps towards its own members). It was smaller than its German counterpart, the quality of its recruits and its training methods were distinctly inferior, it was paralysed in the wake of the Dreyfus Affair and viewed with deep suspicion by its civilian overlords.
In 1906 left-of-centre governments had been elected in both Britain and France committed to a policy of defence expenditure reduction and only reversed this in response to Germany's aggressive foreign policy.
The German diplomatic archives were shredded in the 1920s
Quoted from this message
In order to substantiate this assertion can you provide details of exactly when this was done, where and on whose orders?Â
There is an excellent (and brief) chapter in Fromkin's book entitled "Shredding the Evidence" (Chapter 43) which covers this and I shall only quote this passage:
"During the First World War all sides wanted to prove that they had not started it; afterwards, everyone wanted to avoid "war guilt", especially the Germans, on whom it was officially fixed in the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, after the Armistice. The German authorities instigated the suppression of relevant portions of Moltke's papers.
The result was that even in the decades after the war, evidence tended to be destroyed rather than recovered, and even if recovered, rewritten or restructured. Moreover, the authorities under successive German regimes up to and including the Nazi government carried on a massive disinformation campaign which has been described by [Holger] Herwig in detail in his essay "Clio Deceived"".
(David Fromkin, "Europe's Last Summer: Why the World went to War in 1914", p.252).
During those rehabilitation decades, immediately following the Second World War, Italian and German historians were keen to prove that their countries and societies (including their history departments) had broken with the past. The fashion then was to consider the whole history of those 2 countries, from unification in the mid-nineteenth century through to 1945, as some sort of 'logical progression'. Characters such as Cavour, Garibaldi, and Bismarck etc were often derided at being proto-fascists and proto-nazis.Â
On the contrary, the fashion then was, and still is to some extent, to consider fascism and Nazism as a sort of aberration, a perverse response to war and economic depression, and unrelated to the earlier nationalist and unification movements that were popularly based. Whilst the guilt of the German government in instigating WWII was almost unarguable to assign it guilt for WWI too would contradict this thesis and argue for a much deeper malaise at the top of German society (Italy of course, in a mirror image of its position in WWII, although diplomatically linked to Germany and Austria before 1914, was neutral for the first 9 months of the conflict before coming in on the Allied side in a coup egineered by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, and therefore has little or no role in the events of 1914).
Fischer ploughed a very lonely furrow and Paul has already posted some of the various slights and hindrances he received from fellow academics and from his own government. Even post-war German society had bought into the "shame of Versailles" and to have to admit that there might be some truth in it would be akin to undermining the national identity.
The current historical consensus surrounding Germany's responsibility for WWI is derived from a through study of the existing evidence and does not depend on anti- German prejudice or a victors' view of the past.
Quoted from this message
There is no ‘historical consensus’ on this - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.Â
How many reputable historians currently writing believe that the German High Command and Government did not play the major role in in instigating WWI?
As far as the Triple Entente powers were concerned they had nothing to gain from war and everything to lose
Quoted from this message
Nothing to gain like Alsace-Lorraine, Namibia, Tanganyika, Togoland, Samoa and Tsingtao etc. Everything to lose like no longer being embarrassed by Germany’s excellent social welfare example and therefore setting Europe up for the severe class-based political struggles of the 1920s and 1930s etc.Â
Britain and France had enough colonies to contend with and, as shown by Britain's experience in South Africa, colonial expansion came at a heavy price so the desire to provoke a continental war with Germany over its relatively few (compared with Britain & France) and much inferior colonial possessions seems far-fetched.
The major powers had recognised that colonial expansion, particularly in Africa, might provoke conflict and at successive conferences in 1884-5 had attempted to delineate each other's claims thereby reducing tension. Whatever the tragic consequences for the African people, it is arguable that colonial expansion in Africa dinminished rather than exacerbated tensions in Europe during the 19th century as it afforded another focus for territorial acquisition.
In one of his last acts as Chancellor, the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890, Bismarck
recognised British territorial claims in East africa even ceding German-held land in Kenya in order to recover an island in the North Sea, a British relic of the Napoleonic War. If colonial expansion had provoked conflict it would have been between Britain and France not Britain and Germany, and almost did, at Fashoda in 1898, but for the common sense of the commanders on the ground.
Britain had already ceded independence to its South African colonies, under Boer leadership, in 1910 and the German colonies were distributed after WWI as League of Nations mandates not as war booty (Namibia, or German south-West Africa as it then was, going to South Africa, not Britain).
Far from being embarrassed by the German social welfare model as well as the German educational system many, on both the left and right in Britain, held up as a shining example to be imitated. Social imperialists such as Rosebery, Chamberlain and Haldane were particularly admiring of the German example. For much of the 19th century there was deep sympathy among the British upper class, well versed in German culture, with German national aspirations as well as more than some admiration for "the smack of firm government" occasionally administered by its Prussian overlords (this was to spill over after WWI) and a unified Germany was seen as a valuable counterweight to both France and Russia.
Indeed the betting until comparatively late would have been that Britain would have breached her "splaendid isolation" not with France but with Germany with whom Britain seemed to have much more in common. The fact that she didn't owes more to German, rather than British, policymakers. The idea that Germany's social welfare system (set up by Bismarck to dish the socialists) provideda recipe for conflict is fanciful. On that basis we would have gone to war with Sweden in the 1930s.
Britain had a tiny volunteer army used for fighting colonial wars which had received a bloody nose in South Africa
Quoted from this message
A bloody nose from the even tinier volunteer Boer army.Â
Quite, so why would Britain want to take on the largest, best equipped, most well-trained force in Europe if not the world?
It was this Prussian Junker officer caste which, along with the industrialists and bankers, had promoted the war
Quoted from this message
And the UK officer class, industrialists and bankers were opposed to war?Â
In 1914 there was a mutiny by the British officer class against being made to fight Irish Protestants. Many British Army officers had ties with Germany and respected the professionalism of their counterparts in the Reichswehr. Britain and Prussia had been allies in The Seven Years War and against Napoleon. Unlike the French, there was no former shame to erase or national honour to recover.
Also, although seemingly alike as strong industrial economies, there were big differences between the British and German economies. The German economy relied on a home market protected by a high tariff wall. The British economy was built on world trade. Most of its staple industries produced for the export market. The City of London earned its living from shipping and insurance and the trading of assets. Whereas the German economy was self-sufficient the British economy was interdependent. We imported more than half our food and raw materials.
The interruption to trade caused by a continental conflict could be catastrophic to the position of Britain in the world economy and most businessmen realised this at the time. In the event their worst fears were realised and after WWI the world's financial centre shifted from London to New York and has remained there ever since.
However it was the burning of Louvain, carried out on the orders of the German military commander, that had the greatest effect and which can be compared to the bombing of Rotterdam in 1940. To an intellectiual elite in both Britain and France (and America) steeped in the idea of a European culture
Quoted from this message
The bombing or Rotterdam? Was that a bit like the bombing of Hamburg, the bombing of Cologne, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Caen, the bombing of Monte Cassino, the bombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki etc?Â
Not really, because none of those places had actually surrendered before being bombed or destroyed as Louvain and Rotterdam had. The comparison I was making with Rotterdam was not on some scale of frightfulness but of the effect they had on public opinion, particularly in the Allied countries and the United States, at a similar early stage in the war. I was making no statement as to the level of barbarity compared to what occurred, on both sides, at later stages in both conflicts.
It is significant to note that the concept of "war crimes" was first developed in WWI not WWII
Quoted from this message
The concept of war crimes is as old as war itself.
The modern concept of international military law, however, stems from the Franco-Austrian War in the 1850s and the development of the Geneva Conventions. The later Hague Conventions were in part also prompted by the general disgust in Europe at British brutality in South Africa during the Boer War.Â
These conventions are essentially treaties entered into by states and it is the state that is at fault if they are breached or disregarded. As far as I am aware there is no provision, certainly not in the ones drawn up in the 19th century, for criminal proceedings to be taken against individuals. Apart from the trial of the Superintendent of the Andersonville POW prison after the US Civil War I know of no example of an individual tried for war crimes before WWI.
I agree with you that the various Geneva and Hague Conventions provided a basis in international law for the "rules" of warfare. However they are not identical with the concept of "war crime". In WWII the Japanese argued that they were not bound by the Geneva Convention governing the proper treatment of prisoners because Japan was not a signatory to the Convention however the abuse and maltreatment of POWs was treated as a war crime and individuals were tried and punished.
Thankyou for taking so much trouble to reply to my post. I am sorry I haven't answered all your points or, probably in your view, adequately answered even those points I have chosen to but I do respect your arguments and think you have made some valuable contributions to the debate.
I am also sorry I have taken so long to reply but I have been stricken with the 'flu bug and I was rather miffed by the withdrawal of one of my postings which seems to have been restored.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 44
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Re: Message 21.
Vizzer,
excuse me for the delay. Thank you for the reply and Allan has already all answered what I wanted to reply perhaps not completely in the same way as my opinion, as I don't fully agree with him as the comparison between Nazism and the Wilhelminian Germany, but I come back on it in the excellent discussion between you and him. With high esteem to both.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Re: Message 37.
Vizzer,
Anti-semitism: "And was also rife in the Russian Empire and in the French Third Republic..."
To add to your comments and those of Allan: I think you were right about the Russian Empire , although not knowledgeable enough about that to make statements. I don't think it was that strong in the French Third Republic nor in the Napoleon III Empire. (from all what I read up to now)
To support what Allan says: I read nearly two times:
"The pity of it all" by Amos Elon.
It's all there about the German progroms against the Jews and their attitudes towards them.
It seems that Amos Elon together with his brother has supported the Geneva Accord.
About Bismarck and the Jews I read from Fritz Stern:"Gold and Iron" (Bismarck and Bleichröder and the start of the German Empire). (1977)
About Fritz Stern:
For my study for this thread I am also reading from:
Fritz Stern: The Failure of Illiberalism(1973) and "Dreams and delusion" (1987) about the history of Germany 1850-1993. (it is the Dutch translation of 1996 in one volume)
"History of Germany" by Raymond Poidevin et Sylvain Schirmann (Hatier 1992)in the French series "Nations of Europe".
In Dutch: "In the Shadow of the Teutoburgerwood" by Thomas von der Dunk (collaborator of the Institute for History of the University of Leiden (The Netherlands)) Undertitle: Ten centuries of German political manners.
My further comments on the rest of your and Allan's messages are for tomorrow.
Warm regards to both,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 46
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 12th January 2008
Paul
Many thanks for your interesting messages again. You have far more credentials than I have to contribute to this thread. However I do not wish to give the impression, and apologise if I have done so, that Imperial Germany was a pale precursor of the Third Reich, even if there were elements, and elites, both shared. Imperial Germany had many elements completely lacking in the Nazi era - a multi-party system, independent trade unions, a relatively unfettered press, an independent judiciary administering a fair process,and devolved government.
However to return to the subject matter of the thread it would be my contention that WWI and WWII originated from a similar cause, a desire by the German political and military elite to use force to resolve outstanding European diplomatic issues and impose German primacy. Whilst this is fairly obvious in the case of WWII, despite an effort by A.J.P.Taylor to argue otherwise (which even he subsequently abandoned), the case of WWI is clouded by the complicated circumstances out of which it arose.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
Re: Message 46.
Allan,
excuse me for the delay. Thank you very much for the kind words and I am the more honoured by it, while I see from what person it comes. Someone I have learned here on the boards to distinguish by the messages I read from him. Someone seeking for what really happened during history in a search, which not fears difficult seeking for the background and underlying indices.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
-
Message 48
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
Addendum to message 45.
Vizzer,
excuse me for the delay. After reading all the "stuff" I would only add some hints that direct to some special attitudes that were specific for the Germans, united I agree late in the 19th century as that other part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation: Italy.
I only extend the special attitudes as to WWI and not to the Nazi era.
And for this I mostly rely on the book of Christian von Krockow: "The Germans in their century" It is a pity that it seemingly only exists in German and in French (I read it in a French translation)
Messages:
I translate also from my thread on the French messageboard: "The Germans of 1870 predestined for the consecutive wars?":
Yes, for me the Sonderweg is only applicable for the road to WWI and from the beginning of the Weimar republic, how complicated it may have been in the first phase, one had already in my opinion an amelioration of the "quality (standard?)" of democarcy, which became more important along the road as for instance the entry in the League of nations, the Locarno Pact and so on.
It was only in 1929 with the Wallstreet crash that Germany glided down, while it was more connected with the American capital than for instance a Britain or a France. One sees it with the data of the ballots. It is evident that in these 3 years the ascendancy of the Nazi power became obvious.
That would not say that their were no parallels between Wilhelminian Germany and Nazi Germany. I was surprized by the parallels that I saw between the original footage (from 1900 on) about Wilhelm II and his Empire in the documentary of ARTE: "Majestät brauchen Sonne" (Emperors need sun) (see my thread 1852839 on these boards:"Germany 1815-1933") and the later footage of the Nazi Germany.
But one has to say that the Nazis have "hired" a little bit everywhere "symbols" as for instance the Nietzsche theories, that they have deformed with the aid of his wife to something adapted to the needs of the Nazis. The same for the theories of Social Darwinism brought in by the British son in law of Wagner. The same with the symbols of the Wilhelm era, especially as the Germans were still used to them after only some 15 years passed.
Vizzer, and that is only an opinion, and I think we discussed it here already on the boards about the Nazi era:
It is a warning from history that the same again can happen at "any!" population with a comparable history and in comparable circumstances.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is it fair to blame Imperial Germany for WW1?
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  to 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.