longsword14
Banned
The great warmongerer was less trigger happy than enlightened France, who incidentally made the whole unification thing so smooth for Prussia.or as others put a State owned by a warmongering army.
The great warmongerer was less trigger happy than enlightened France, who incidentally made the whole unification thing so smooth for Prussia.or as others put a State owned by a warmongering army.
I will even state that the question should be reversed : what would need a change in Germany’s culture to avoid WW1 ?
You need a different unification, a peaceful one, and one that does not lead to a Germany under Prussia’s hegemony.
Prussia was the curse of Germany. It was a militaristic and colonialist State (but a State that would not colonize distant overseas lands but instead wanted to colonize european neighboring lands), or as others put a State owned by a warmongering army.
Without changing this, you will have some kind of WW1.
Sure, but how plausible are they? The notion that everything important had been discovered was soon exploded in science, even as they spoke nagging peripheral issues already known turned out to be fulcra totally overturning basic concepts. Similarly, people may have smugly believed they had the big issues of society pretty well in hand, but such pride always goeth before a fall in our experience. Newt Gingrich believed the Internet had abolished market cycles and what are we now, two, three cycles and counting since then? Galbraith had a classic essay, "Financial Genius is Before the Crash," about similar fatuousness in the 1920s. Meanwhile we don't need to resort to generalities to see in retrospect the nigh inexorable drive toward general war underscoring the first half generation of the 20th century.This forum is full of timelines over these issues.
That doesn't matter. The premise of the OP was that the world wars did not happen, at least as we know them, and the question was about the demeanor of Germany in a different 20th century.Sure, but how plausible are they?
Germany bears very little responsibility for the starting of the war. The blame in near entirety belongs to Nicholas II's Russia.
Serbia committed an act of state sponsored terrorism against Austria by having their intelligence agency bankroll the assassination of the Austrian deputy head of state; Austria was morally justified to declare war on Serbia over this
Had Russia not engaged in their pan-slavism and adventurism, it would have been contained to an Austria v Serbia war. Instead they mobilized against Austria to defend the Serbs; which in turn triggered the balance of the alliance system.
This is to say nothing of the revengeism, bellicose political discourse and extremely aggressive military build up that France was engaging in... and their refusal to do anything to reign in Russia's continued foreign policy blunders (Russia for the entirety of that alliance was materially dependent on French financial support and was crushed in both conflicts she engaged in under the treaty, (Japan and Germany).
The greatest opportunity to prevent the war would be the collapse of the Franco-Russian alliance sometime before 1914.... for a republican democracy to be allied to such a repressively reactionary regime as Nicholas II should have been more politically unsustainable than it was; and after their debacle in 1905 without any substantive political or military reforms ever occurring, France should have seen the writing on the wall that they were in fact the ones shackled to a corpse
In this case, Russia was morally justified to declare war on Austria for the murders of over 300 (!) Russian officials by Austrian-backed terrorists throughout the early 1900s. So it's all good.
Oh, and it's a total myth that Russia was engaged in "pan-slavism" (world's most ill-defined buzzword) and "adventurism" in 1914. Throughout 1913 and 1914, Russia was given multiple opportunities to destabilize A-H, and it turned away from these opportunities in blind panic, because it did not want war at the time. Not to mention how Russia failed to make any strong reaction to Austria's own state-sponsored terrorism. Or how, at one point, Russia advised Serbia to not even defend itself against A-H's coming attack.
Russia's policy, and the policy of the entire Entente, was peaceful and conciliatory beyond all reasonable expectations. The war happened because Austria wanted it and Germany was willing to indulge it.
This is news to me? Was't the entire Austrian intel service in the pocket of Russian intel for the 7-8 years before the war?
France's policy was NOT peaceful.... their conscription law of 1912 was extremely destabilizing to the balance of power and forced Germany into a reciprical increase in size of the active army (when they hadn't done so in years) which made everyone even more paranoid about their security and desiring for war, even if just to eliminate threats for the express purpose of being able to slow down future spending
State owned by a warmongering army.
I assume you're referring to the Redl affair? Redl was a well-placed and useful agent, but ultimately he was just a man. The Austrian intelligence as a whole was not in anyone's pocket, and it was surprisingly good at its job in spite of leaks.
France's conscription law could be seen as an offensive or defensive measure. IMO, abstract disturbances of the "balance of power" can't be considered aggression. It's only direct threats or attempts at undermining a neighboring state.
I still think Serbia deserves most of the blame. They committed an act of state sponsored terrorism. If Syria or a other nation encouraged or funded assassination of a US president many in the US and abroad would say the United States is justified in declaring a war against them. I am actually a bit surprised any nation would support Serbia in this situation especially Russia who has experienced assassination of their leaders by radicals.Id love to read any materials on Austria's intel ops of the period if you have any suggestions
France's move was aggressive; modernizing their forts to have long recoil artillery, machine guns and mortars would have been defensive. Doubling, the size of their active field army when Germany hadn't increased the field in 9 years feels very aggressive
But to launch an all out war seems wrong. Austria should simply have replied proportionally, i.e. kill off Serbian officials in various positions (Prime Minister, officers on the army staff etc. ).I still think Serbia deserves most of the blame.
I'm not so sure that reciprocal always equals proportional. That's more street gang reasoning than the act of a powerful nation state committed to going beyond warfare to better ways. It might have been innovative and enlightened in the time of Hammurabi perhaps. (Indeed the Old Testament "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" code was I believe meant to be an upper limit on retaliation, not a demand for reciprocity as a minimum. Relative to "offend me in the least and I will level your city and salt the earth and scatter your survivors to the far corners of my empire!" eye for an eye was progressive and enlightened).But to launch an all out war seems wrong. Austria should simply have replied proportionally, i.e. kill off Serbian officials in various positions (Prime Minister, officers on the army staff etc. ).
I don't believe it was inevitable. You could say the the same about many conflicts. People thought conflict between the USSR and the USA was inevitable but it wasn't.I'm not so sure that reciprocal always equals proportional. That's more street gang reasoning than the act of a powerful nation state committed to going beyond warfare to better ways. It might have been innovative and enlightened in the time of Hammurabi perhaps. (Indeed the Old Testament "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" code was I believe meant to be an upper limit on retaliation, not a demand for reciprocity as a minimum. Relative to "offend me in the least and I will level your city and salt the earth and scatter your survivors to the far corners of my empire!" eye for an eye was progressive and enlightened).
If we say, "well, sure, nations are nothing more than overgrown street gangs and the notion of some sort of post-warfare concert of nations to secure general peace is utopian and unrealistic," then I think that would just validate my thesis that the blame for the Great War goes around pretty much to everyone--when I say France was guilty, I certainly am not saying therefore Germany or Austria--or certainly not Serbia--was therefore not guilty. They all were guilty of failing to look beyond warfare. If we assume that in the end the relations of nations must always involve warfare then we pretty much have to concede the Great War was a thing that would inevitably happen, sooner or later and by the mid-1910s, probably sooner.