Your favorite reason why Britain would DoW Germany anyway if Berlin went east-first in 1914

[marathag]

nly what happens in July 1914 AH and Germany instead of seeing the alliance system as a deterrent they start seeing it as way to get an advantage they can use and convince themselves that they can beat France and Russia if it comes to it, and if it come now it's better then it coming later

Why wouldn't they? The motion setting both Russian and France against Germany was set by by the Russian Mobilization against both A-H and Germany.
So there was to be War, and Germany was hoping for a quick fight against France, to get them to sue for Peace, and then have undivided attention against Russia, the slower of the pair and then get peace treaty out of them.
Now I've not made a secret that going into France thru Belgium was a huge blunder, but that's with over a hundred years of hindsight.

So while I don't condone it, I understand it.
The value of alliance to deter war, that fell apart with the Russian desire to back their odious South Slav minion, that had no defense treaty with anyone, by Mobilization against A-H and Germany.
Russia also expected a short War, with them parading thru Brandenburg Gate before the snow fell.

 

[TDM]

Why wouldn't they? The motion setting both Russian and France against Germany was set by by the Russian Mobilization against both A-H and Germany.

No it wasn't see all the rest of the stuff I posted about

So there was to be War, and Germany was hoping for a quick fight against France, to get them to sue for Peace, and then have undivided attention against Russia, the slower of the pair and then get peace treaty out of them.

So there was to be war suggests that Germany just came across it. Only didn't just find that war and thought shit better get this done quick, it to a large extent created that war because it knew it's plan to get it done quick had an expiry date (again see the rest of what I posted to see Germany's attitude here)

Now I've not made a secret that going into France thru Belgium was a huge blunder, but that's with over a hundred years of hindsight.

So while I don't condone it, I understand it.
The value of alliance to deter war, that fell apart with the Russian desire to back their odious South Slav minion, that had no defense treaty with anyone, by Mobilization against A-H and Germany.
Russia also expected a short War, with them parading thru Brandenburg Gate before the snow fell.

Only again you can back people you don't have a mutual defense treaty with

The value of an alliance to deter didn't fall apart when Russia backed Serbia if anything that when it should have kicked in most because with Russia doing that it was then very clear to AH & Germany that further pushing risked war with Russia and France. But as I said that's the point, that was a deterrent to Ah and Germany that was the goal.

Also FWIW I also understand why Germany did what it did, but that doesn't mean Germany and AH don't bare the overwhelming responsibility for this. However your hindsight point is interesting one because it suggests you are thinking the issue with of the invasion of Neutral Belgium is one of the schlieffen plan's ultimate sucess or failure, and not the invasion of a Neutral neighbor. An issue which require no hindsight to recognise.


Since you keep cutting out chunks of what I post I'll post this again to illustrate the attitudes in Germany

Also on 24 July, after Berchtold met with the Russian chargé d'affaires, furious complaints were prompted from Berlin, warning that Austria should not engage in talks with any other powers in case a compromise might be worked out.[110]

Why would Germany be so anti the idea of a compromise being worked out?

 

[marathag]

Only again you can back people you don't have a mutual defense treaty with

So why did European nations even bother with Treaties?
Because they wanted stability.
Small nation doesn't want to be invaded? Get a treaty with a larger nation to help deter that.
Or don't do things that piss off your neighbors, like support assassins.

 

[NoMommsen]

Russia's mobilization was a diplomatic move warning Austria that the crisis could lead to war if Austria persisted.

... only that the russian Qartermaster General Danilov, the russian War minister Suchomlinov and the then head of the deployment and mobilization department Dobrorolski told different to you (aaand btw the 'great' russian chronologist of the war Golovin as well )

Nothing in the historical record indicates that Russia wanted the crisis to lead to war.

erhmmm ... nnno ... there are numerous 'records' that even Sazonov pushed for war and tried in vain to persude Nikki to NOT believe into Willy and go for war asap.

I would recommend :
Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914 by Stefan Schmidt
It's full of esp. french archival sources from the diplomatic service of Russia as esp. France, the involved ministries and diaries of involved persons including not at least the notoriuos diaries as well as officical communications of Paleolog for examples supporting what I've said.

Russia was prepared to accept some harsh terms on Serbia including the Austrian occupation of Belgrade. She wasn't willing to allow Austria to dismember Serbia.

Any source on that ?

 

[NoMommsen]

Sorry but that is an unsupported assertion. Russia's mobilization was in reaction to Austrian moves against Serbia. They were trying to deter the Austrians. No documents, or memoirs of high officials in France or Russia have ever surfaced to show they wanted the July Crisis to end in war. ...

... ever tried reading this ? ... could point you to some of the questioned evidences ...

 

[Aphrodite]

... only that the russian Qartermaster General Danilov, the russian War minister Suchomlinov and the then head of the deployment and mobilization department Dobrorolski told different to you (aaand btw the 'great' russian chronologist of the war Golovin as well )

erhmmm ... nnno ... there are numerous 'records' that even Sazonov pushed for war and tried in vain to persude Nikki to NOT believe into Willy and go for war asap.

I would recommend :
Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914 by Stefan Schmidt
It's full of esp. french archival sources from the diplomatic service of Russia as esp. France, the involved ministries and diaries of involved persons including not at least the notoriuos diaries as well as officical communications of Paleolog for examples supporting what I've said.


Any source on that ?

Only the Tsar could decide on war. There is no record that in any way Nicholas desired war. He, like everyone else except for the German and Austrian war party, saw the Serbian response as a suitable basis to end the crisis.

The Serbian response was acceptance of some pretty harsh terms and then there was the telegram suggesting that Serbia not even resist the occupation of Belgrade.

But then, there's nothing to indicate that Austria wanted anything but war

 

[Belisarius II]

So why did European nations even bother with Treaties?
Because they wanted stability.
Small nation doesn't want to be invaded? Get a treaty with a larger nation to help deter that.
Or don't do things that piss off your neighbors, like support assassins.

So, the Belgians had a treaty signed by Germany guaranteeing their independence, and neutrality, yet the Germans invaded them. The Germans told the other powers they were working for a peaceful solution to the crisis when they were secretly preparing and pushing for war. The Germans rejoiced when Russia started mobilization because it gave them a pretext for a war, they had already decided they wanted to fight. These actions showed the Germans to be treaty breaking aggressors, and faithless negotiators. Lying to another leader's face about your intentions costs you your credibility. The CP's acted in bad faith, and with dishonor in July 1914.

By the way what would happen today if a major power attacked Israel? The U.S. has no defense treaty with her but watch what the Americans would do if that happened. In 1914 everyone knew Russia considered Serbia an ally, and wouldn't standby if its existence was threatened, and that's just what the Germans were counting on.

 

[Dorknought]

Again, Russia chose the option of war. It could have canceled its support for Serbia.

The German ultimatum to Russia to stop mobilising didn't even contain the word 'war'

Germany and AH used their pact against Russia/France to smash Serbia.
Italy said 'thats not what its for' and opted out.
France backed Russia with the clear instruction - don't antagonise Germany.
Clearly France and Russia are trying to STOP a war between AH and Serbia. Why do people think this is such a bad thing?
Germany is deliberately derailing the peace process and then broadcasting their need/desire to attack a neutral state. Why do people think this is such a good thing?

 

[Alternator]

Topic: "Why would Britain get involved anyway?"

Discussion on page 12+: "Why are the Germans/Russians really the ones at fault for WWI?"

How about "Everybody decided they'd rather risk war than back down," and call it a day?

 

[Nivek]

How about "Everybody decided they'd rather risk war than back down," and call it a day?

People want the moral high ground when everyone truly wanted the war

 

[The Gunslinger]

Topic: "Why would Britain get involved anyway?"

Discussion on page 12+: "Why are the Germans/Russians really the ones at fault for WWI?"

How about "Everybody decided they'd rather risk war than back down," and call it a day?

I think it's because some posters still follow the thesis that the Germans are ultimately to blame and others don't. Given how contentious that topic is amongst professional historians I can't see it being less contentious here.

 

[Belisarius II]

Topic: "Why would Britain get involved anyway?"

Discussion on page 12+: "Why are the Germans/Russians really the ones at fault for WWI?"

How about "Everybody decided they'd rather risk war than back down," and call it a day?

Because everything isn't equal. For the Germans & Austrians backing down would mean accepting a diplomatic solution, and not going to war. For the Russians & French backing down would mean letting Serbia be destroyed, and hoping they aren't attacked anyway.

 

[marathag]

backing down would mean letting Serbia be destroyed, and hoping they aren't attacked anyway.

Need a cite that A-H wanted destruction.
Removal of enablers of terrorism isn't the same thing

 

[Belisarius II]

... ever tried reading this ? ... could point you to some of the questioned evidences ...

Russia wanted to carve up the Ottoman empire, but instead of provoking a war with them provoked one with Germany & Austria. The Russians didn't think they were ready for a war with the Germans, but July 1914 was too good an opportunity to start a general war, giving them cover to attack the Turks. The Turks had no known alliance with the Germans and had stood aside during the July Crisis. So somehow the Russians knew that German ships would seek refuge in Turkey, join the Turkish Navy, and attack Russian ports leading to war. Russia would remain on the defensive on land and await the Ottoman attack. Russia would then counterattack, and along with their allies start the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.

That convoluted bit of reasoning ranks along with the best Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories. I know the Russians are fames chess players, but this is a bit too much. It requires the Russians to know so many things in advance, playoff so many factions, and run so many risks as to be unbelievable. The idea that Nicholas II during his dear cousin Willy cables was rubbing his hands with glee, and thinking "Willy is falling into my trap, soon the Ottoman Empire will be mine for the taking." is ridicules.

Like most conspiracy theories it takes disjointed facts, and connects them into a coherent, but illogical plot. The Russians had aggressive designs against the Ottomans, and WWI destroyed the Ottoman Empire, so the war must have been brought about by the Russians to achieve that objective. The rooster crows, and the sun comes up.

 

[Belisarius II]

Need a cite that A-H wanted destruction.
Removal of enablers of terrorism isn't the same thing

Respectfully we're on page 15, lots of people have posted the relevant documentation.

Hoyos visits Berlin (5-6 July)[edit]​

In order to ensure Germany's full support, the Chef de Cabinet of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Ministry Count Alexander von Hoyos visited Berlin on 5 July. On 24 June, Austria-Hungary had prepared a letter for its ally outlining the challenges in the Balkans and how to address them, but Franz Ferdinand was assassinated before it could be delivered.[33] According to the letter, Romania was no longer a reliable ally especially since the Russo-Romanian summit meeting of 14 June in Constanța. Russia was working toward an alliance of Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro against Austria-Hungary, dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, and the movement of borders from east to west.[citation needed] To break up this effort, Germany and Austria-Hungary should first ally with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. To this letter was added a post-script on the Sarajevo Outrage and its impact. Finally, Emperor Franz Joseph added his own letter to Emperor Wilhelm II which closed with advocating the end of Serbia as a political power factor.[34] Hoyos was dispatched to Germany to present these letters. The letters were presented to Wilhelm II on 5 July.

Von Hoyos provided Austro-Hungarian Ambassador Count Ladislaus de Szögyény-Marich with two documents, one of which was a memo by Tisza, advising that Bulgaria should join the Triple Alliance, and another letter by Franz Joseph I of Austria stating that the only way of preventing the disintegration of the Dual Monarchy was "to eliminate Serbia" as a state.[32] The letter by Franz Joseph was based closely upon Berchtold's 14 June memo calling for the destruction of Serbia.[27] Franz Josef's letter explicitly stated that the decision for war against Serbia had been made before the assassination of the Archduke, and that the events of Sarajevo only confirmed the already pre-existing need for a war against Serbia.[35]

After meeting with Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to Germany Szögyény on 5 July, the German Emperor informed him that his state could "count on Germany's full support", even if "grave European complications" ensued, and that Austria-Hungary "ought to march at once" against Serbia.[30][32] He added that "in any case, as things stood today, Russia was not at all ready for war, and would certainly think long before appealing to arms". Even if Russia were to act in defence of Serbia, Wilhelm promised that Germany would do everything in its power, including war, to support Austria-Hungary.[32] Wilhelm added that he needed to consult with Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, who he was quite sure would have a similar view.[36]

After his meeting, Szögyény reported to Vienna that Wilhelm "would regret it if we [Austria-Hungary] let this present chance, which was so favourable for us, go by without utilising it".[37][38] This so-called "blank cheque" of German support up to and including war was to be the main determining factor in Austrian policy in July 1914.[37]

At another meeting held on 5 July, this one at Potsdam palace, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, the Foreign Ministry's State Secretary Arthur Zimmermann, the Minister of War Erich von Falkenhayn, the head of the German Imperial Military Cabinet Moriz von Lyncker, the Adjutant general Hans von Plessen, Captain Hans Zenker of the Naval General Staff, and Admiral Eduard von Capelle of the Naval State Secretariat all endorsed Wilhelm's "blank cheque" as Germany's best policy.[37] On 6 July, Hoyos, Zimmerman, Bethmann-Hollweg, and Austro-Hungarian Ambassador Szögyény met and Germany gave its "blank cheque" commitment to Austria-Hungary of firm support.[36]

On 6 July, Bethmann-Hollweg and Zimmermann further repeated the promise of Wilhelm's "blank cheque" at a conference with Szögyény.[39] Although Bethmann-Hollweg stated that the decision for war or peace was in Austria's hands, he strongly advised that Austria choose the former.[39] That same day, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey was warned by the German Ambassador in London, Prince Lichnowsky, of the dangerous situation in the Balkans.[40] Grey felt that Anglo-German co-operation could resolve any Austro-Serbian dispute, and he "believed that a peaceful solution would be reached".[40]

When asked if Germany was ready for a war against Russia and France, Falkenhayn replied with a "curt affirmative". Later on 17 July, the Army's Quartermaster general Count Waldersee wrote to Gottlieb von Jagow, Foreign Minister: "I can move at a moment's notice. We in the General Staff are ready: there is nothing more for us to do at this juncture".[37]

As Wilhelm himself stated in private "in order not to alarm world opinion", the Kaiser left on his annual North Sea cruise.[39] Shortly after, Wilhelm's close friend Gustav Krupp von Bohlen wrote that the Emperor said that we would not waver in declaring war if Russia mobilized.[39][note 1] In the same way, Berchtold suggested that Austrian leaders go on vacation "to prevent any disquiet" about what had been decided.[41]

German thinking[edit]​

Germany's policy was to support a swift war to destroy Serbia that would present a fait accompli to the world.[42] Unlike the three earlier cases dating from 1912 when Austria had asked for German diplomatic support for a war against Serbia, this time it was felt that political conditions for such a war now existed.[43] At this time, the German military supported the idea of an Austrian attack against Serbia as the best way of starting a general war, whereas Wilhelm believed that an armed conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia would be purely local.[44] Austrian policy based upon pre-existing plans to destroy Serbia involved not waiting to complete judicial inquiries to strike back immediately and not to strain its credibility in the coming weeks as it would become more and more clear that Austria was not reacting to the assassination.[45] Likewise, Germany wished to give the impression of its ignorance of Austrian intentions.[41]

The thinking was that, as Austria-Hungary was Germany's only ally, if its prestige was not restored then its position in the Balkans might be irreparably damaged, encouraging further irredentism by Serbia and Romania.[46] A quick war against Serbia would not only eliminate her, but also probably lead to further diplomatic gains vis a vis Bulgaria and Romania. A Serbian defeat would also be a defeat for Russia and reduce her influence in the Balkans.

The benefits were clear but there were risks, namely that Russia would intervene and this would lead to a continental war. However, this was thought even more unlikely since the Russians had not yet finished their French-funded rearmament programme scheduled for completion in 1917. Moreover, they did not believe that Russia, as an absolute monarchy, would support regicides, and more broadly "the mood across Europe was so anti-Serbian that even Russia would not intervene". Personal factors also weighed heavily and the German Kaiser was close to the murdered Franz Ferdinand and was affected by his death, to the extent that German counsels of restraint vis a vis Serbia in 1913 changed to an aggressive stance.[47]

On the other hand, the military thought that if Russia did intervene then St Petersburg clearly desired war and now would be a better time to fight, when Germany had a guaranteed ally in Austria-Hungary, Russia was not ready and Europe was sympathetic to them. On balance, at this point in the crisis, the Germans anticipated that their support would mean the war would be a localised affair between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. This would be particularly true if Austria moved quickly, "while the other European powers were still disgusted over the assassinations and therefore likely to be sympathetic to any action Austria-Hungary took".[48]

 

[kham_coc]

Yet the uk conceded the straits before the Ottomans joined. Its almost like if Austria and Germany isn't in a position to stop them they can do whatever they want.

 

[Belisarius II]

Yet the uk conceded the straits before the Ottomans joined. Its almost like if Austria and Germany isn't in a position to stop them they can do whatever they want.

Could you provide more details, and the context of these agreements? You're making it sound as if the British & Russians were planning on an invasion, and partition of the Ottoman Empire even if it stayed neutral. That would be a reversal of 100 years of British policy regarding Turkey, and keeping the Russians out of Constantinople, and the Mediterranean. The British were deeply concerned about rising German influence in Turkey, and the sheltering of the Goeben, and Breslau. This sounds more like a wartime agreement talking about what if the Turks join the CP, then planning naked aggression against Turkey. Britain could hardly be expected to continue to protect the Turks if they joined the enemy camp and attacked them.

 

[Ambusher11]

Topic: "Why would Britain get involved anyway?"

Discussion on page 12+: "Why are the Germans/Russians really the ones at fault for WWI?"

How about "Everybody decided they'd rather risk war than back down," and call it a day?

No, don't you see? The Weimar Republic needs to prove that the German Empire was completely innocent of causing WWI so Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles will be invalidated and Germany will therefore no longer need to pay reparations!

 

[Tibi088]

No, don't you see? The Weimar Republic needs to prove that the German Empire was completely innocent of causing WWI so Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles will be invalidated and Germany will therefore no longer need to pay reparations!

The ongoing argument is not if the German Empire is respnsible - practically everyone here agrees that Germany and Austria were responsible for WWI. The argument is that some say only they were responsible while others argue that Russia and France did their fair share as welll to turn the conflict in to WWI. I understand how it can be confusing as some people continue to bring facts and evidence of Germany and Austria being at fault - which I personally think is pretty unecessery as nobody argues that they arent. The only reason I can think of is its a lot easier to do that and concentrate on that than looking at the french and the russians - i have yet to see any argument backed by sources instead of grand (and either unproven or proven to be factually wrong) statements of their innocence / good intentions while also repetedly ignoring the uncomfortable facts and sources the other side bring up to indicate / prove their co-responsibility. It's easier to switch the topic back to Germany (and get in to debates about minor details there) where they can bring facts and sources to ultimately prove what nobody disputes.

 

[Aghasverov]

The ongoing argument is not if the German Empire is respnsible - practically everyone here agrees that Germany and Austria were responsible for WWI. The argument is that some say only they were responsible while others argue that Russia and France did their fair share as welll to turn the conflict in to WWI. I understand how it can be confusing as some people continue to bring facts and evidence of Germany and Austria being at fault - which I personally think is pretty unecessery as nobody argues that they arent. The only reason I can think of is its a lot easier to do that and concentrate on that than looking at the french and the russians - i have yet to see any argument backed by sources instead of grand (and either unproven or proven to be factually wrong) statements of their innocence / good intentions while also repetedly ignoring the uncomfortable facts and sources the other side bring up to indicate / prove their co-responsibility. It's easier to switch the topic back to Germany (and get in to debates about minor details there) where they can bring facts and sources to ultimately prove what nobody disputes.

Agree in full here. I won't say that Germany and A-H were completely innocent.... but I will say that the subsequent historiography (most of which, that I have read anyway, has been from the "winning" side), sorely neglected the roles that Serbia (or at least elements within the Serb government and military), Russia, and France played in the lead-up to the Crisis. Frankly, I think much of it has been a snow job.