Wars and Conflicts permalink
I need help on World War I Causes.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by klj792 (U10852055) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
I need help i have been searching the web all day trying to find 11 causes for world war one can someone please help me?
-
Message 2
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Are you in Year 9?! My son has the same homework - but he's only got to find five causes (but there are easily eleven - if not more - depends how you split them up).
You will find a wealth of information here already. If you look at the thread I launched a couple of weeks ago - Was Imperial Germany responsible for WW1? - you will find vast amounts of what you need, contributed by all the experts here. There's also another whole debate dating back to autumn here, further down.
I would say it's quite difficult to 'chop up' the causes into separate ones, as they are all linked, and one 'cause' can 'cause' another 'cause' if you see what I mean.
For example, the main reason usually cited for why a WORLD war happened (as opposed to just a local war) was that the major powers (initially in Europe, but eventually including the USA as well, plus the Middle East, and arguably Japan played a contributory role as well because they had a lot of rivalry with Russia), were divided into two camps, like gangs or teams.
As you will know, these two camps were:
Imperial Germany (ie, Germany under the Kaiser - the Second Reich as it officially was) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, plus Turkey and a handful of minor Balkan countries of which I think Romania was one and possibly Bulgaria.
The rival camp/gang was England, France, Russia, Serbia and Italy (the last not much use militarily, but it seldom is!).
The problem was - any argument between ANY two members of EITHER gang, would mean that all the OTHER members of the gang would then weigh in as well.
So, when Austro-Hungary picked a quarrel with Serbia (the Serbs, as you will know, had just assassinated the heir to the AH throne in Sarajevo, and also wanted the AH empire to break up, so other national Serbs living in the empire could join up with independent Serbia and make Serbia bigger and stronger), Serbia called on its 'big pal', which was Russia (Russians and Serbs are both slavs by ethnicity, and Christian Orthodox by religion, so they are very similar).
Russia told AH to back off from Serbia. But then AH gets ITS 'big pal' Germany involved. Germany tells Russia to back off from AH.
But Russia has a friend too, France, which is on the west of Germany, and France tells Germany to back off from threatening Russia.
So Germany decides to knock out France, and then knock out Russia. So Russia goes to war with Germany and its chum, AH.
But for Germany to knock out France, it has to march its armies through the little kingdom of Belgium, just to the north of France.
But Belgium is a neutral country, and England has promised to protect it, if it's attacked.
But the Germans attack anyway, marching - very bloodily - through Belgium and into France.
So the French are now at war with Germany. England declares war on Germany because Germany attacked neutral Belgium, and sends an army to France. (The Kaiser despises the English soldiers, and sneers that they've sent over a 'contempible little army' - the British, having a Great Sense of Humour, made sure that all those who survived from that original army could then call themselves the 'Old Contemptibles' ....)
AH meanwhile has attacked Serbia (which it was longing to do all along, because it knew Serbia wanted the AH empire to break up), and Russia goes in to protect Serbia, by attacking AH (as well as Germany).
Then Turkey, which has long been an enemy of Russia, comes in on the side of Germany and AH.
As for Italy, well, at first it was anti-AH, then in the end it came in on the side of AH and Germany,but, as I said, it wasn't a very strong military power, so it didn't really matter in the end which side it was on.
(In fact, it was probably more trouble to have Italy on your side, than having to fight it. So much so that in the Second World War, when Italy was on Germany's side, the British said that was only fair, as they'd had to have them in the First World War! Italy was like a weak player that no one really wanted on their team!)
Finally, in l917, America comes in to the war on the side the Allies (ie, England, France and Russia), partly goaded into doing so because German submarines are attacking American ships (officially neutral!) delivering food and people to the UK. The American President, Woodrow Wilson, also thinks he should come in, like a grownup, and sort out all these squabbling badly behaved European powers, who are a bunch of imperialists and monarchists, which America doesn't approve of!
However, if you want to go back a bit, and find out WHY there were these two big rival gangs in Europe, you have to look a bit further back into history.
Basically, the problem was that in the l9th Century, just before WW1, the great fashion was for nationalism - everyone was very patriotic about their countries. This was fine if you HAD a country to be patriotic about, like Britain or France. But several places in Europe didn't have a country of their own.
Italy and Germany were two of them. Both places were just a collection of small states (as if, say, Scotland, Wales, Ireland were completely separate countries, plus, say East Anglia was a separate country, and Cornwall), and in the l9th C there was a big, big move in Italy and Germany to unite all the small bits into one official Italy and Germany.
This happened - but differently in each place. In Italy, the Italy that was formed as a single state was basically like Britain - it had a king, but it was also fairly democratic, with a Parliament that effectively ruled the country. They were a bit disorganised, but then, that's Italians for you!
In Germany, however, unification went differently. Over a period of about 20/30 years, the most powerful of the German states, Prussia, which had its own king, gradually mopped up the other states, to form the Germany we know today - but ruled by the Prussian king, who was now called the emperor (Kaiser) of a united Germany. The difference was that the Kaiser was far more powerful and the Parliament was far weaker. The Prussians thought soldiers were the most important people, and were generally pretty damn bossy (not all Germans liked the Prussians, but it was too late, they'd been taken over).
The main way the Prussians managed to take over Germany and unify it was by engineering wars against other people, to unite the Germans against a foreign country. They did this three times - first against tiny little Denmark, grabbing a bit between the two countries that Germany claimed was its own (Schleswig Holstein).
Next it went to war with Austria-Hungary - mainly to prove to the Germanic Austrians that they, the Germanic Germans were more powerful than the Austrians (it was a bit of a debate whether to include Austria into the new big Germany, but the Austrians had a lot of Slavs in their empire, so they got left out in the end).
Finally, Prussia/Germany went to war with France, quite delibeately, in l870. This was the deciding war, because France got totally thrashed (which was very humiliating for it, as it still thought of itself as as powerful as it had been under Napoleon, sixty years earlier), and, worst of all, the eastern provinces of France, Alasace and Lorraine (AL), were taken over by Germany, who said they were more German than French (the French of course said they were more French than German!)(no one bothered to ask the people in AL which country, France or Germany, they wanted to be, so far as I know)
So by, l870, Germany had united itself into a large, powerful, highly militaristic state, led by Prussia, whose king became the Kaiser.
Germany went right on becoming richer and richer - the Germans work like stink, and built factories and so on, and did very well for themselves.
BUT, France hated Germany because it felt humiliated at losing the l870 war, and longed to get AL back. Austria felt a bit wounded, but basically was still chums with Germany, plus it had a lot of problems with its subject peoples, mostly slavs of one kind or another (there are a depressingly large number of different kinds of slavs, which makes it very complicated - and a lot of them hate each other as well!).
Now, the Balkans was the final part of Europe that didn't really have their own separate countries. So they, too, wanted to form nation states.
The reason the Balkans were in a mess was because they were caught between three big powers - the Turkish Ottoman empire in the south, the Austro-Hungarian empire in the north, and Russia in the east.
Historically, the Ottoman Turks had invaded and conquered the Balkans from about the l6c onwards (our Tudor times), with the battles going backwards and forwards across the Balkans, even reaching as far as Vienna round about the time of our Charles II (l680-ish).
But the Austrians also wanted to rule the Balkans, and took over quite a bit of them to make the Austro-Hungarian empire. Russia, too, was keen, not so much perhaps of ruling the Balkans, but having them as pals/allies - for the reason that the Balkans have a coastline on both the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (Adriatic - where Yugoslavia is/was)(Croatia mostly now!), and what the Russians really, really wanted was to be able to sail their navy out of the Black sea into the Mediterranean sea, and then out into the rest of the oceans, because all their northern ports, like St Petersberge, were frozen in winter.
BUT, the Turks didn't want the Russian navy coming through their waters, and the British didn't either, as we had the best navy and didn't want the Russians coming anywhere near India, which we ruled, and which the Russians wanted as well! (the Russians caused trouble for us in Aghganistan, which is between Russian and India)
So, by l914, there was a very unstable and complicated set up in the Balkans. Some bits were independent already (eg, Serbia), but some were still ruled by Austria, and the Turks still had some bits left as well, and Russia was palling up to the Balkan slavs and offering them friendship (but at a price!).
Lots of other bits of the AH empire also wanted to become indepdent, such as the Czechs and Poles (who are also slavs!), and they wanted to break up the empire and become independent (as they did in l918). Austria, of course, didn't want to let them go! (if they all left the empire, Austria would just be the small, un-powerful place it is now)
So, by l914, the world is in a dangerous situation. We have:
- Imperial Germany, flexing its muscles, wanting to be top nation in Europe and for everyone to kow-tow to it: including
(1)Britain, which was Top Nation, with the world's biggest empire and best navy, both are bigger and better than Germany's!
(2)Russia, getting increasingly richer and more powerful as it industrialised and it had a history of territorial expansion as well, including westwards (eg, it already ruled Poland, right next to Germany)
(3) France, because although Germany beat it in l870, Germany envies France for its colonial empire - Germany is miffed because, since it didn't become a nation itself recently, France and Britain had bagged most of the colonies for themselves, so there isn't much left of the world that isn't a European colony, and only has a couple of places in Africa to boss about, so it feels inferior to Britain and France, and thinks they should give some of their colonies to Germany!
- France, smarting from losing to Prussia and losing AL, and knowing that Germany would like to grab some of its colonies if it can.
- Austro-Hungary, scared of losing its subject peoples to independent countries of their own, as Serbia had already done, and quite prepared to slamm down hard on any slavs who cause trouble (eg, the Serbs!).
- Russia, itself nervous of both Germany and AH, and wanting to use the Balkans to get access to the Mediterranean, and possible even rule...?
- Britain, currently Top Nation, but when you are at the top there is only one way, and that is down.... so Britain is nervous that Germany is getting richer (though it likes the Germans as hardworking, and likes them more than it likes the French, whom Britain has fought for centuries!)(plus the Kaiser is the King's cousin). Britain also doesn't like that the Kaiser has been expanding the German navy, because the Kaiser is jealous of the British navy. Historically, Britian doesn't like any country in continential europe to become TOO powerful, as we feel it might threaten us.
- The Balkans, a very messy and complicated place (still is!), with lots of people all hating each other, and some hating the Turks, some the Russians, some the Austrians, but all of them wanting to form independent countries of their own (although some of them are quite happy to boss around OTHER Balkan nationalities and states!).
So, with that set up, everyone is really jittery, and getting more so.
In self-protection, the two gangs form, with alliances and 'understandings' (Ententes) between them - Germany, AH, Turkey and Italy, versus France/Russia/Britain.
In a way, it's actually quite surprising that F/R/B palled up. Historically, Britain and France have always been enemies, and as I said, in the l9thC Russia and Britain were enemies and rivals over the navy and India. BUT, because Imperial Germany became so jealous and anti-Britain/France/Russia, it made sense for B/F/R to pal up together, and agree to go to war if any of them were attacked by Germany and AH.
With the two gans formed, there are several 'international crises' before war finally breaks out, where the great powers almost go to war, but then back down. (eg, a colonial crisis in Morocco in l911). But when Jan Princip's bullet kills the AH arch-duke, it's the final straw, and up goes Europe into flames that destroy a civilisation, and kill a generation of young men in blood and mud.
The end of an era, and the stupidest war in Europe. Mainly caused by Germany, I'm afraid.....though some disagree.
No idea if this helps you, but it's certainly helped sort things out in my mind for when my son has to do HIS homework!
Eliza. -
Message 3
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Italy - entirely the other way round. Originally part of "Triple Alliance" with Germany & Austria-Hungary, refused to join in war (it was only required to do so in a defensive war), eventually joined Allies. Main causes of friction - parts of what Italians regarded as Italy had not been freed from A-H empire in C19th (look up "irredentist" for more data) and naval rivalry in Adriatic.
-
Message 4
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
"As for Italy, well, at first it was anti-AH, then in the end it came in on the side of AH and Germany,but, as I said, it wasn't a very strong military power, so it didn't really matter in the end which side it was on."
Whoops! Many apols - lost in editing the bit that said Italy swapped back again to B/E/R side! (But then, like I said, it didn't really matter which side it was on anyway!)
(For the record, I think it is entirely to their national credit that the Italians are not militaristic!)
I deliberately didn't mention about Italy freeing Lombardy/Venetia from post-Napoleonic Austrian rule during the Risorgimento, as I thought I was getting incredibly complicated as it was! (That's the trouble with explaining anyting in history - you have to explain the explanations, by even further reference back and back and back)
I've also fudged the Balkan set up, especially over Bosnia Herzogovina, plus Roumania/Bulgaria, and I completely left out that the Hungarians were the Austrians stoolies, and only too happy to boss about any slavs they could (or Roumanians in Transylvania - they weren't fussy!)
Nor did I mention, again for simplicity, the aliance of the three emperors where Germany/Bismark tried to align the Tsar with the two Kaisers, as it was only temporary. -
Message 5
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
klj792
,
Here's some causes;
1.) Admiral Tirpitz wrote something History has since called 'The Risk Theory Memo'. AT the time the Royal Navy ran a policy of having a fleet bigger than the next two biggest fleets put together.
Tirpitz suggested to the Kaiser that they didn't need to match the RN, just offer a situation where any victory would involve such losses to the RN that it would be at best a Pyrrhic victory. This caused the Arms race.
2.) The Franco Prussian War. Franco was soundly defeated by an Allience of then independent German States that went on the Become the German Empire. Germany held areas which were prior to the War parts of France (Alsace/Lorraine). The French felt Humiliated and wanted Revenge.
3.) British Foreign Policy - The long standing policy was of Balance on the Continent, so some may suggest that the UK and Germany were more natural Allies, the Franco-Prussian war created an in-balance within the continent. The UK joined France and Russia, thus creating two camps. The central Powers and the Triple Entente.
4.) The disintegration of the Hapsburg Empire (Then Called the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and the increase of Nationalism of smaller countries, Austro Hungary still wanted it's sphere of influence and retain it's Empire.
5.) -
Message 6
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
One of the key 'friction points' between Britain and Germany seems to have been the navy - possibly THE key friction point.
Why did Britain have the navy it did? Britain surely has a history of not spending more on armamants that it absolutely has to and even then there are usually complaints (by soldiers etc!) that not enough is being spent (though to an extent, I guess soldiers will always say that!). So, was the British navy 'necessary' to be the size it was (I'm talking pre arms race with Imperial Germany)?
What did Britain need its navy for? I would assume it needed it to police the seaways to ensure that its cargo ships (and those of its aillies/trading partners) to/from trading nations and colonies were not impedable by other nations' navies. I would assume that it needed to be able to deploy ships - and via them, troops - to its colonies in normal times, with enough margin for non-normal times (eg, Boer war).
I would assume that as current Top Nation (courtesy of the industrial revolution/GNP/financial capital of the world/biggest colonial power), Britain would regard having a 'decent sized' navy as part and parcel of its Top Nation status, just to keep in scale with everything else. And I would also assume that Britain had a 'standing policy' dating back to Nelson that it was necessary for the British navy to be powerful enough to take on any other countries navy (any TWO other coutries combined navies - fascinating point there!) on a 'just in case' basis.
Were there any other reasons - sound or otherwise -why Britain felt it needed a navy the size it did have (pre arms race?)?
My reason for asking is this - did Imperial Germany have those same reasons, to the same amount, or did it have other 'sound' reasons (I am not counting 'jealousy' as a sound reason!)?
ie, was there any reason why Germany should want to equal or even supersede British naval strength? -
Message 7
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Sounds very 1066ish. Top nation, better, best, and so on.
"BUT, the Turks didn't want the Russian navy coming through their waters, and the British didn't either, as we had the best navy and didn't want the Russians coming anywhere near India, which we ruled, and which the Russians wanted as well! (the Russians caused trouble for us in Afghanistan, which is between Russian and India)"
This doesn't make much sense. Why the worry if it was the best navy? Forgive me for thinking of that Bucket woman wrinkling her nose up at Russian sailors who invited themselves to a candlelight supper on the poop deck.
No, the British navy being the best (and that could be debated) has nothing to do with it. A Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean would upset the balance of power in the area, allow Russia to meddle more in Britain's foreign affairs, cut a chunk out of trade profits, and, yes, make it easier to strike at India, if they ever decided to do so. The Ottoman Empire wasn't happy at the prospect either, because that would be the first nail in her coffin. Russia would be in a position to demand more and more concessions, including independence for the various Christian peoples of the Empire.
I am also appalled by the all the Italy comments, such as. "As for Italy, well, at first it was anti-AH, then in the end it came in on the side of AH and Germany,but, as I said, it wasn't a very strong military power, so it didn't really matter in the end which side it was on." Absurd.
Laying aside the fact that it had a decent-size army, if Italy was on the side of G & AH, a lot of pressure could be brough to bear on France. Look at the importance of the 1917-18 campaign in Italy, when, as a result of Russia leaving the war, AH freed up troops and, at G's encouragement, attempted to invade north-eastern Italy. Britain helped stop that, but the Italian army's role should not be underplayed.
Their problem was a lack of good leadership in the beggining, but they did remarkably well for themselves in 1918.
In the 1930s Italy was very frightening, and had the most advanced army in Europe, if not the world. The big problem there was not enough money. They fought a lot better in WW2 than they are usually credited with. -
Message 8
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
France is the natural ally, because who is Britains big neighbour to the right? Of course, that also makes it a natural enemy.
"3.) British Foreign Policy - The long standing policy was of Balance on the Continent, so some may suggest that the UK and Germany were more natural Allies, the Franco-Prussian war created an in-balance within the continent. The UK joined France and Russia, thus creating two camps. The central Powers and the Triple Entente." -
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Italian light naval forces, in both world wars, were fully as good as anyone else's. Some Italian units fought extremely well, some did not. Much the same could be said of others.
Re Britain and the need for its navy. In 1917, Britain was within weeks of running out of food to feed its people (much the same occurred in 1942/3, of course.) It depended on imported food then as it had done for decades - British mercantile fleet was greater than those of the rest of the world combined. germany did not depend on imported food and raw materials to anything like the same extent. -
Message 10
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
I'd say it's a matter of logic that if you have the best navy (WAS it questionable that the British navy was the strongest in the world? Genuine question!), you don't want any other nation's navy to be able to cause you trouble, and therefore you seek to minimise any trouble it might be able to give you.
So, keeping the Russian navy safely bottled up in the Black Sea would have been sensible policy for Britain. (Though it was actually a disastrous long term policy, as it meant propping up a collapsing Ottoman empire that was - very justifiably - loathed by most of those it governed, especially in the non-Muslim Balkans, and the continuance of the Ottomon Empire - the sick man of Europe - was a major contributor to the instability in the Balkans).
One of the things that always irritates me as a 'sensible 21st C middle aged woman' (!) is just WHY countries are always seeking to expand territorially, instead of just getting on with the business of governing the people and lands they already have. In that aspect, I find it quite pointless that Tsarist Russian should have wanted to try and take over India (and did it really seek to do so? Again, British foreign policy seems to argue it thought so!), when it was already so vast.
For the non-expert in Britain (like me!), the main thing we learn about Italy in the first world war was that British troops had to dress up as Italians to try and stop the real Italian troops running away from the Austrians. But perhaps this is an unfair representation of the actual military impact of Italy in the war! -
Message 11
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
As I said, that line of logic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not your navy is the best. ANY navy doesn't want another in waters it sails. The Mediteranean was crowded enough already.
The Royal Navy was probably the largest, and as a result, I suppose, the strongest, but that is not quite the same as the best.
The Ottoman Empire (which, BTW by that time wasn't seeking to expand it's territory, but to govern what it had) was propped up, because just as nature abbhores a vacuum, so do nations. Who knew what might have risen from it's ashes, or worse, who would be the one to take it over?
As for India and Afghanistan, it was mostly in Britian's head. There had been a few half-hearted plans to attack India, but nothing to the extent imagined by Britain. Most of the Afghan mess comes from Britain overreacting to a situation which they themselves had brought about.
Of course, if Russia could have, they would have taken India. Be a fool not to, but they really were in no shape to do so. A huge obstacle was being bottled up in the Black Sea. They couldn't have held something like India if the only decent communiaction and resupply routes went through some of the harshest terrain in the world.
The Italian army had just suffered badly as a result of inept leadership, so it was entirely natural to go to your allies for help in a crisis. After all, what are allies for?
The view that British soldiers had to dress up as Italians to stop Italians from running away is very unfair. -
Message 12
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
I'd say from a military point of view 'best' = 'strongest' (how else might best be defined militarily?). One of the problems about being the strongest at anything/top nation, is that you have to constantly try and stop anyone else toppling you from that position, so it makes you more 'paranoid' perhaps.
It's interesting you say Russia wasn't really threatening India, but that it would have been a fool not to if it could, because it is that latter that I find incomprehensible - why take over countries for the sake of it when you have existing vast territories? But then, I have never understood that sort of imperialism!
I think the question of what might have happened if the Ottoman empire had not been propper up is fascinating. One of the things I also find irritating in history (apart from mindless imperialism!) is when nations/powers seem to try and 'hold back the tide'. It seems clear that the 'tide' in the l9thC was running towards national self-determination, and therefore trying to hold back that tide, whether in the Ottoman empire or in Austro-Hungary or the Balkans, was simply counter-productive and doomed?
Had Britain not sought to shore up Turkey, but let it crumble 'in its own pace', I think the emergence of independent Balkan states would have been a good thing - PROVIDING (and it's a big provision!) they didn't then all promptly start squabbling amnongst themselves. Perhaps that would have been inevitable, given the historical animosities, plus the hopeless mingling of territories and ethnicities, as this is still plaguing the region a century later. Perhaps only the end of the 'age of nationalism' will see any kind of stability in the Balkans, when Europe becomes a complete Union, and whether you are a Montenegron in Serbia, or a Hungarian in Romania, will be as irrelevant as if you are a Scot living in London or a Welshman living in Birmingham. -
Message 13
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Volgadon
“France is the natural ally, because who is Britains big neighbour to the right? Of course, that also makes it a natural enemy.â€
France was far from the natural Ally, it was only the UK’s Ally as of the imbalance after the Franco-Prussian war. We were allies in the Crimean for National interests alone.
Germany was by far the more natural Ally given the Royal connection (France being a republic – at the time significant), similarity of Language, Culture, common distrust of the French, France being our Historical Enemy, not Germany.
ElizaShaw
Why did Britain have the navy it did?
Britain was a traditional Naval Power, not a land power. Usual com`We had the 2-1 ratio due to several factors.
Our Empire was large and spread out across the Globe. The Navy acted effectively as the Police of the Empire. It needed to be so big due to shifting alliances. If we had a navy larger than the next two, we were covered to an extent.
“My reason for asking is this - did Imperial Germany have those same reasons, to the same amount, or did it have other 'sound' reasons (I am not counting 'jealousy' as a sound reason!)?
ie, was there any reason why Germany should want to equal or even supersede British naval strength?!â€
The point of the Risk Theory Memo was that they never had to equal or match us. The Arms race came from this, and the Kaiser being VERY Jealous… -
Message 14
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
"The point of the Risk Theory Memo was that they never had to equal or match us. The Arms race came from this, and the Kaiser being VERY Jealous…"
So there wasn't any real strategic reason for enlarging the German navy. The Germans had nothing to gain except our suspicious and potential emnity. -
Message 15
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
If you want to find out more about the causes of WWI on the net, trying keying "WWI causes" into google - I did and got immediately the following:
www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/causes.htm
www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/wwi/wwicauses.htm
www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/great_war/causes.htm
-
Message 16
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Elizashaw, I was talking about the way you had phrased it.
"It's interesting you say Russia wasn't really threatening India, but that it would have been a fool not to if it could, because it is that latter that I find incomprehensible - why take over countries for the sake of it when you have existing vast territories? But then, I have never understood that sort of imperialism!"
Alright, what are the reasons for that kind of imperialism? Or to put the question differently, why did Britain hold on to India, the 'Jewel in the Crown', and fight the useless Afghan wars to preserve it?
The answer is very simple. It was profitable.
I don't have any figures at hand, but the trade to and from India was lucrative, to say the least. States can always do with more money, more revenues.
Besides, for all the size of the Russian Empire, large chunks of it weren't terribly useful, or arable. They did realise that the cost of them taking and holding India wasn't worth it.
Before judging anyone of 'holding back the tide' you need to consider it from their POV. What could they foresee happening if the Ottoman Empire collapsed, especially if Russia helped the process.
For the sake of clarity, I meant natural in the sense of geography. -
Message 17
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
I suppose one reason Russia was always territorially acquisitive was simply that it always had been - a hard habit to break! It just went on and on and on and on expanding. To me it seems hopelessly over-extended, and adding India would have just made it worse.
As for the Ottomans, well, they were crumbling anyway - and they had no business being in Europe anyway!! But I guess just as all rulers are against assassination on principle (next time it might be them, not their enemy), so all empires are 'pro-empire' on principle - the next empire to be dismembered might be theirs! -
Message 18
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Really? It's about the same size of the US or Canada, and it acquired it's territory in a very natural process of expansion, that is, following the lay of the land. It went on and on because there was nothing to stop it. They realized that holding India would over-extend them, and didn't take it.
What do you mean by saying that they had no business in Europe, it's not, I hope, ridiculous clap-trap about them being Asiatic and so-on. I could take that silly proposition and argue it from the other side, that they had as much right as anyone to be in that part of Europe as they were related to the people there. You know, the descendants of various nomadic tribes that settled in that region, but also because the Ottomans had as much Anatolian, Greek, Albanian, Slav and whatnot in them as Turk. Politically, diplomaticaly and administratively, they replaced the Byzantines, who had many interests in the area, etc. Prepostrous innit? Just like the other side of the coin, so please tell me that isn't what you meant.
Britain and France weren't opposed in principal to an Ottoman collapse, but it would have to happen when the time was right. Definitely not with a Russia, bearing the banner of Pan-Slavism, a Russia poised to strike at the heart of the Mid-East, who could sail neatly through the Bosphorous, waiting to pick up the pieces.
Same problem with Germany, who were investing heavily in the Ottomans.
The situation in the Balkans was due to other European powers fanning the flames of discontent and nationalism just as much as to anything the Turks did. It could also be argued that a strong Turkish government in the Balkans would also have prevented much of the problems there. -
Message 19
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Well, no one has any business in taking over any one else's territory by force, which is what the Ottomans did (and what a lot of other empires do, of course - possibly all empires), but the Ottomans had particularly no business in imposing an Islamic government on Christian territories. In the middle east, their territories were at least co-religionists, and therefore not so alien as they were in Greece and the Balkans. Whether they behaved as brutally and repressively to their Islamic territories as they did to their Christian ones I don't know.
I appreciate that Russia straddles two continents, which elide very easily into one another geographically, and therefore perhaps is less 'euro-centric' than countries which are only in Europe, both in physical terms, and in cultural and religious terms.
It's interesting (to use a neutral word!) to see that, post USSR, there are signs of increasing 'pro-Europeanism' lets say, in Russia, and more 'anti-Asianism'. Another very interesting development (again, from a neutral point of view) is the increasing blurring between the borders of Siberia and China, where the vastly overpopulated latter looks hopefully, and perhaps enviously, at the vastly underopulated Siberia. Given the coming Great Thaw, I would suspect that Siberia may become increasingly attractive as a human habitat, though I believe a Great Thaw could well also prove very dangerous in terms of highly inflammable methane released from melting permafrost.(This is a bit off topic from WWI - sorry!) -
Message 20
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 18th January 2008
ElizaShaw
Remember that The German Empire was the New Kid on the block - A new country that had ambition, but no Empire. This is something they tried to change.
Also, 'Cousin Willy' was envious of the Much Older British Empire and wished to play catch up.
In regards to the Navy, the introduction of HMS dreadnought gave a good opportunity - Making all other Battleships obsolete overnight. -
Message 21
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 18th January 2008
As for Italy...it wasn't a very strong military power, so it didn't really matter in the end which side it was on.Â
Regardless of the competance of the Italian army, Italy was of strategic importance. An allied Italy initially drew Austro-Hungarian troops away from fighting Serbia. After the fall of Serbia, the Italian front still occupied several hundred thousand Austro-Hungarian troops who could have been more usefully employed elsewhere. For instance, if they'd been at the Somme, the Germans wouldn't have had to move essential reserves from Verdun and the French army might have collapsed. If the French had to also defend against Italy, the war could have been lost in 1916.
As the war dragged on, the Allies became increasingly keen to open new fronts becasue it played to their strengths of excess manpower and supplies whilst stretching the Central Powers (the withdrawal of Russia actually released fewer troops that expected as the Central Powers occupied large swathes of Russia). Having to cover the extra front with Italy contributed to the overall attrition of the German & Co. armies which led to their eventual collapse. The Italians, despite many setbacks also scored a hugre victory in 1918 which cost the Austrians over 300,000 men. -
Message 22
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Friday, 18th January 2008
I was just surprised that you singled out the Ottoman Empire. If we are going to talk about imposing religion, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians were just as much to blame, impsoing Catholicism or Protestantism on Eastern Orthodox areas. Nearly as alien, trust me. This is not mentioning a certain 'top nation' either.
They behaved brutally anywhere, be it a Christian area or a Muslim one, when there was unrest to be put down, or they needed more recruits. Nothing terribly unusual in that. It seems like you are painting them a bit blacker than warranted, because they are non-European Muslims. Not saying they were plaster saints, and wonderfully humane, but honestly, usually not that different from the rest of Europe.
The biggest problem in the Balkans was the tradition of banditry, which often exploited religion to give itself legitimacy. The Greeks were as brutal one to another as the Turks were to them.
The Turks were fairly foreign to the Arabs, who saw them as little better than the Ferenji (Franks IE non-Arab Christians) and pretty poor Muslims at that.
Russian 'nationalism' is pretty much your standard right-wing facism, with shades of both 'old' and 'new' antisemitism, but directed against Armenians and others from the Caucasus. Isn't very historical. I mean, yes, they never loved each other to bits (but that was when you didn't care much for people from beyond the nearest villages), but if you were Christian, theyt didn't care that much.
Siberia and China were always pretty blurred. In fact one Chinese official (in the 18th C. IIRC) said that our border lays across the back of a Cossack saddle. Siberia is attractive because you can find more jobs and get paid slightly better wages. -
Message 23
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
"One of the key 'friction points' between Britain and Germany seems to have been the navy - possibly THE key friction point.
Why did Britain have the navy it did? Britain surely has a history of not spending more on armamants that it absolutely has to and even then there are usually complaints (by soldiers etc!) that not enough is being spent (though to an extent, I guess soldiers will always say that!). So, was the British navy 'necessary' to be the size it was (I'm talking pre arms race with Imperial Germany)?
What did Britain need its navy for? I would assume it needed it to police the seaways to ensure that its cargo ships (and those of its aillies/trading partners) to/from trading nations and colonies were not impedable by other nations' navies. I would assume that it needed to be able to deploy ships - and via them, troops - to its colonies in normal times, with enough margin for non-normal times (eg, Boer war).
I would assume that as current Top Nation (courtesy of the industrial revolution/GNP/financial capital of the world/biggest colonial power), Britain would regard having a 'decent sized' navy as part and parcel of its Top Nation status, just to keep in scale with everything else. And I would also assume that Britain had a 'standing policy' dating back to Nelson that it was necessary for the British navy to be powerful enough to take on any other countries navy (any TWO other coutries combined navies - fascinating point there!) on a 'just in case' basis.
Were there any other reasons - sound or otherwise -why Britain felt it needed a navy the size it did have (pre arms race?)?
My reason for asking is this - did Imperial Germany have those same reasons, to the same amount, or did it have other 'sound' reasons (I am not counting 'jealousy' as a sound reason!)?
ie, was there any reason why Germany should want to equal or even supersede British naval strength?"
Britain's empire had been built on seapower and pretty much relied on Seapower.Our wealth and trade from the empire relied on the again,on the RN being able to control the seas.
This was a fact that did not go unnoticed,indeed an American Admiral named Alfred Mahan wrote a book which basically stated that Britains Royal Navy,had been a key instrument in the building of its world wide empire and generation of trade.
In turn many observers after reading his text were converted to the idea of the "battlefleet",for instance Theodore Roosevelt or had their own reinforced (like Tirpitz).
In Germany's case you also had as head of state,a man who was obsessive about seapower and extremely jealous of the Royal Navy,a navy who in its ranks had members of his family (obviously from the Engish side!).With Tirpitz as the man to implement his plans,the Kaiser got his battlefleet.
But at great cost,both in terms of money and foreign policy.
For Britain everything relied on her naval dominance,for Germany it did not.Whilst Germany had overseas possessions they were not of any real importance to Germany herself.There was no German "India" or "Suez".Germany was renowned(and its strength based)on its armies prowess.
For this reason Churchill made the comment that the German High Seas Fleet was a "Luxury Fleet".
As Mani pointed out Tirpitz had devised his "risk theory",that his fleet needed to be big enough to make the RN think twice,as although it would probably win it would be at great cost.Of course Tirpitz was talking complete boll***s,the RN and the British had been brought up on the history of "Trafalgar" and "The Armada".They knew that the RN kept the UK safe from invasion,as Nelson said
"I do not say they cannot come,but they cannot come from sea"
So the idea that Tirpitz could build up a large fleet on the other side of the North Sea and expect the British not to respond was folly.Hence the arms race,an arms race which Britain didnt particulaly want.Remember that on various occassions it was the UK that suggested arms control treaties which were refused by Germany,or more to the point by the Kaiser and his Chancellor.
By 1914 the RN had won the "Dreadnought race" and done by a reasonable amount.
In response to your latter posts,the RN was ,thanks to Admiral Fisher in his tenure,Battenburg and Churchill, the stongests Navy in the world.And whilst mistakes were made(no secure base in the north sea area in 1914,and the non introduction of convoys till 1917)it has to be remembered that the RN won the day and in reality lost only one battle, (Cornonel).Whilst the High Seas Fleet seems to take a lot of plaudits,it achieved nothing.Many will shout out aloud "Jutland",that the RN lost more ships and men,that the majority of the German ships made it back to port etc.As one anomynous observer stated:
"The Germans claimed aloud weve won!
But surely tis a curious view,
That the victors are those that run,
And the vanquished that pursue!"
The RN held the field and if signalling and inteligence had been better the following morning the High Seas Fleet would have taken a battering.And Admiral Sheer knew it,he told the Kaiser as much.
So much for the vaunted High Seas Fleet,an abject waste of time, a pecursor and catalyst to the disentergration of relations between the UK and Germany.
Vf -
Message 24
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 19th January 2008
So, was the British navy 'necessary' to be the size it was (I'm talking pre arms race with Imperial Germany)?Â
That's hard to say. Between Trafalgar and 1914, the Royal Navy did not have to fight any battle in which it was seriously challenged for the supremacy of the seas. There was some fighting, but it either consisted of battles with seriously outnumbered enemy forces or it was limited to coastline and riverine skirmishes. So on that grounds, one could argue that a smaller navy could have accomplished as much.
On the other hand, the size of the Navy was useful because it allowed a strong presence to be maintained globally, and it was a strong factor in the "Pax Brittanica" that supported the empire. The number of troops available for policing the empire was small, mobility and the intimidating presence of the fleet were extremely important. One of the effects of the arms race with Germany was the concentration of the fighting strength of the fleet in home waters, which in turn required careful deals with France and Japan to meet the Empire's defensive needs. And that in turn threatened to drag Britain into other people's wars. The one-sided maritime supremacy of earlier years certainly had its advantages, it permitted the "splendid isolation" of the Victorian age.
Finally, a steady level of shipbuilding was required between 1860 (HMS Warrior) and 1906 (HMS Dreadnought) to keep up with the rapid technological evolution in these years, and create enough warships to test new ideas in practice. Even if there was no numbers race before Tirpitz initiated one, the technological race only accelerated. The result was, by 1914, a Navy which was large but also counted a fair amount of ships that were too obsolescent to play a significant role in a serious battle.
My reason for asking is this - did Imperial Germany have those same reasons, to the same amount, or did it have other 'sound' reasons (I am not counting 'jealousy' as a sound reason!)?Â
Not exactly jealousy, but one of the reasons Wilhelm II wanted to have a large navy definitely was that he loved the RN, and therefore he wanted a fleet of his own. (Being a RN honorary admiral was nice, and he even sent the Admiralty letters with technical advice, but it wasn't quite the same.) He went as far as saying so in a newspaper interview. His ministers had a fit -- considering the size of the maritime budgets the Reichstag was being asked to approve, such a frivolous motivation rather undermined their case.
That aside, German naval strategy limped along on several crutches, none of them very convincing. The standard one was, as you wrote, the concept of a "Risk Fleet" (Risikoflotte). The idea was that although this fleet it would never be strong enough to take on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Fleet and expect to win, the risk involved in such a battle would be large enough to deter Britain from a war with Germany. Even if the Hochseeflotte was defeated (as was almost inevitable) the losses might be such that the RN lost its maritime supremacy. It must be said that this partially worked, remember that Churchill later described admiral Jellicoe as the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. If the Germans managed to isolate part of the fleet or fight in advantageous conditions, they might still be lucky.
So it was expected to a be deterrent. Germany's industrial revolution, which was the source of its military strength, was heavily dependent on trade: Import of raw materials and food, export of finished products. In 1914-1918, the Allied blockade of German trade would strongly contribute to its final defeat. Hence, considering the British control of the sea lanes, finding some way to prevent a war with Britain made good sense. But trying to achieve this by trying to compete with British shipyards did not, for the simple reason that the available resources were too uneven. Britain had more shipbuilding capacity and did not have to spent that much on its small field army.
a navy who in its ranks had members of his family (obviously from the Engish side!).Â
Not so obvious. Don't forget that Queen Victoria belonged to the House of Hannover, and Prince Albert to that of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Both had German relatives, and being born outside Britain was not necessarily a barrier to serving with the RN. Prince Battenberg/Mountbatten, First Sea Lord in 1914, also belonged to the German nobility, and had been born in Austria. Popular pressure after the outbreak of the war (if I remember correctly there was even a case in which a mob lynched a dachshund) prompted the royalty and nobility to "anglicize" themselves.
"I do not say they cannot come,but they cannot come from sea"Â
That's not attributed to Nelson but to St. Vincent (John Jervis).
The RN held the field and if signalling and inteligence had been better the following morning the High Seas Fleet would have taken a battering.Â
It depends on what you call intelligence. The "intelligence" in the modern military sense of the word was reasonably good, also because Scheer had only a limited number of options. But a bit more clear thinking and aggressiveness on the part of some of the battlefleet officers would have done wonders, especially during the night. They were so used to their admiral doing all their thinking for them and knowing everything before they did, that they couldn't be bothered even to report the presence of the enemy. -
Message 25
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Sunday, 20th January 2008
Mutatis_Mutandis
I was thinking about "Room 40" when considering intelligence and Captain Jacksons mistrust of his "boffins"(as they were civillians as oppossed to navy).This mistrust,led to Jellicoe delaying sailing.Jackson signalled him that Sheer's call sign was still in Wilhelmshaven,in actual fact it was his "harbour" callsign,a ruse known to the civillians of room 40,but not by Jackson,who would take no advice from non naval types.Who knows what difference a few extra hours would have done.
Room 40 also failed to signal Jellicoe that they intercepted a request from Sheer for Zeppelin reconassaince over the Horns Reef,a "giveaway"if ever there was one(especially as the Admiralty HAD signalled that Sheer was heading for home,correctly identified the formation of his fleet and correctly that course would be south east(to the Horns Reef).Jellicoe had been suspicious of some of the signals,but if he had had zeppelin command he may have had the pieces of the jigsaw he required.
I would say that the outstanding commander at Jutland was Hipper,who acheived every asked of him and more.Sheer on the other hand had been extremely lucky after making some poor decisions(especially after executing a successful "batle turn away" then reverses course again back into Jellicoes awaiting guns,an order even Sheer couldnt explain)The British were a "mixed bag" Beatty was rash,and gave away the advantages he had,such as range and of course the delayed deployment of the mighty 5th Battle Squadron.Jellicoe performed a perfect deployment,crossed Sheers "T" but aware that preservation of the fleet was vital,considered a "turn away" more prudent than a "turn towards".
The commanders of the lighter forces probably come out with the most credit (men like Goodenhough)and displayed more of the mythical "Nelson touch" than perhaps their capital ship contemporaries (Seydlitz,for one,should never had made it home after being spotted by various british dreadnoughts).
As for the RN still having a fair amount of obscelescent ships in 1914?
Well yes I suppose there were,but I would argue that pretty much every major navy in the world possessed warships that had been left behind by the advance of technology.Whilst say the "wobbly eights"were not suitable for Grand Fleet,they made a useful reserve for the Thames estuary and whilst the RN had redepeloyed its best units back home,they still needed to "fly the flag" and in most cases an armoured cruiser would have sufficed in peacetime.
In fact thanks to Fisher the really "useless junk" and "miser's hoard" had been disposed of well before 1914,ships described by Fisher as "to weak to fight,to slow to get away" were steadily scrapped.That is not to say that by 1914 every thing was rosey but ships like the "Royal Soveriegns" "Centurions" etc had gone.If war had not broken out in 1914 Im sure that you would have found that anachorisms like the "Edgar" class and the more eldery pre dreadnoughts such as the "Majestics" and "Canopus" would have gone to the breakers.
On the redeployment of the fleet back to "home waters" I would also add that whilst the Germans building of a fleet was the impetous for redeployment,its worth noting that in any case even smaller navies (such as Brazil,Argentina) had powerful warships,mor powerful in most cases than the ships the RN would have chosen for the area.This was especially true in relation to the "China Station" and Japan,indeed the the good relations with Japan and the subsequent treaty,allowed the RN to focus on waters closer to home.
Vf
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.