Germany's war aims in 1914/1915

Susano

Banned
Metz was German speaking, but its surroundings werent. So, yes, arrounding as in "filling the gap between Metz and Alsace". And Alsatian isnt a language.
 
And Alsatian isnt a language.


Susano,

Alsatian isn't a language but everyone just treats it as if it were? Whatever... :rolleyes:

I've noticed that, because you've spun off into these linguistic quibbles, you haven't answered the thread's actual question: What were Germany's war aims in 1914/1915?. It could be that you forgot or it could be for other reasons.

We've already heard from Zimmerwald and goggled over his assertion that, because Germany never officially announced any war aims in the period, Germany did not have any war aims in the period.

What's your spin on the question. I'm sure we'd all be happy to read it.


Bill
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Err, that was my first post in this thread.

And as Ive said before, before the 20thc entury nobody really would have considered Alsatian to be an own language. Now, if ancien regime Alsace used German, it of course would be of Alsatian type, as there was no unified German yet back then - about every HRE principality used its own regional German, too.
 
Err, that was my first post in this thread.


Susano,

So, Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" is as good an enunciation of Germany's early wars aims as anything else?

I just want to make sure here.

And as Ive said before, before the 20thc entury nobody really would have considered Alsatian to be an own language.

And no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.

You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?


Bill
 
My sense is that Germany had persuaded themselves that a war was likely. The german regime felt that they were more likely to win in 1914 than later. So they decided to start the war.

They had no rational identifiable objectives in July 1914, once war started they had to think of things they wanted.
 

Susano

Banned
Susano,

So, Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" is as good an enunciation of Germany's early wars aims as anything else?

I just want to make sure here.
Sure, if one keeps in mind it was at the upper end of the demands scale. But sure.

eAnd no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.

You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?
I explained that in the sentence that was placed right after your quote cutoff.
 
Metz was German speaking, but its surroundings werent. So, yes, arrounding as in "filling the gap between Metz and Alsace". And Alsatian isnt a language.

Susano,

Alsatian isn't a language but everyone just treats it as if it were? Whatever... :rolleyes:

And as Ive said before, before the 20thc entury nobody really would have considered Alsatian to be an own language. Now, if ancien regime Alsace used German, it of course would be of Alsatian type, as there was no unified German yet back then - about every HRE principality used its own regional German, too.

And no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.

You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?

Come on. The difference between a language and a dialect is completely arbitrary.
 

Susano

Banned
Come on. The difference between a language and a dialect is completely arbitrary.

Yes, yes, a language is a dialect with an army and a fleet. To a degree youre right. Theres still a difference between, well, divergent development (as with German and Dutch) and declarations for political reasons (as with Alsatian and Luxemburger "language")
 
Metz was German speaking, but its surroundings werent. So, yes, arrounding as in "filling the gap between Metz and Alsace".

Really? At what time? and what is your source for this?

Because it certainly isn't one now, whereas Alsatian is still a very living language in Alsace, even in Strasbourg. I find it strange to have such a difference if both were speaking a german dialect in 1871.

Also wiki definitely doesn't support your assertion ( nor the one that french was a common teaching language ).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metz

SO, again, what is your source and what year does it refer to?

And Alsatian isnt a language.

And if you go saying things like this in Alsace, or that Alsatians are germans or that they speak german, you'd better be prepared to meet some violent reactions some of the time.

It's like saying to a scotsman that he's english. You can argue it, but it's not going to be appreciated and some may take violent exception to it.
 
I explained that in the sentence that was placed right after your quote cutoff.


Susano,

You mean your suggestion that Alsatian isn't really Alsatian but is instead German?

That view is rather... well... parochial is the most polite term I can think of that still makes my point.

Also, your contention that Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" represents the upper end of Germany's early war aims is belied by his position as Chancellor and Zimmerwald's own admissions that the many unofficial programs ran the gamut from the punitive to the lax.

As Chancellor, Behtmann-Hollwegg would have proposed a program that he felt could be accepted by most parties. That means his Program was a compromise position, that there were far more punitive proposals being circulated.


Bill
 
Also, your contention that Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" represents the upper end of Germany's early war aims is belied by his position as Chancellor and Zimmerwald's own admissions that the many unofficial programs ran the gamut from the punitive to the lax.
Admission? That was a good portion of the point I was trying to make...
 
No, it's not parochial. It's accurate.

Prior to the development of the modern nation-state in Europe, every country in Europe was a patchwork of dialects as divergent (usually more so) as Alsatian was from German.

To say that Gaelic or Welsh were not real languages (and I'm sure, yes, someone somewhere once said that), one of two things must be true. Either you are speaking in nationalist terms (i.e. "They're uncivilized wretches, so their language isn't important."), in which case you are a bigot and a moron, or you are speaking in linguistic terms, in which case you're just a moron. The Welsh are clearly not speaking any flavor of English.

Until modern classification systems and efforts and making language uniform, Alsatian and German were very different matters. For one "German" flat out didn't exist. Today's German, much like modern Italian, English, Spanish, and even French (although that's a special case) et cetera, is a homogenization of a huge number of often very divergent local dialects. Alsatian was one such dialect of "German," or more accurately "preGerman." Danish, for example, was not.

Language has grey areas, yes. But this is not really one of them.

The example made of telling a Scotsman that he was English is similarly foolish. Scotland is a regional unit with a long history of independence and national identity. So what if they think they're Scottish? Of course they're Scottish! What counts is if you told a Scotsman he was speaking English, he would agree. [I am aware of the obvious jokes here. Keep them to yourselves, we're dealing with unsubtle people.]

Alsace has an ethnic history distinct from Germany only because it switched hands back and forth between the Holy Roman Empire, France, and Germany. Preservation of the dialect is a historical accident, like the survival of Swiss dialects of French, Italian, and German - borders restrict the spread of uniformity. That doesn't mean, per se, that they're all different languages once you're in Switzerland. That depends on whether you use really picky definitions or not.

Make your definition picky enough and you have several American English languages. Doesn't mean treating regionalisms as such is useful or reasonable.

Finally I would add that the tone taken by certain posters in this thread, especially Mr. Cameron, is snarky, argumentative, and inappropriate for thoughtful discussion. If you can't be bothered to understand your opponent's argument you should sit back in chat and read while the grown-ups take care of the discussion threads.
 
Last edited:
Susano,

So, Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" is as good an enunciation of Germany's early wars aims as anything else?

I just want to make sure here.



And no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.

You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?


Bill
There's a huge difference here. (Irish) Gaelic was a 'real language', it was just the language of Papist treasonous peasants, to exaggerate.

Alsatian is not a 'language' because it is almost universally considered a 'dialect' of German - although it is further from Hochdeutsch than Swedish is from Norwegian.

Alsatian (and/or the other Alamanic variants of German) could easily have been considered different languages from Hoch Deutsch, as could Platt (in its several variants). Similarly, there could be 2 or 3 or more 'languages' in Italy. But, speakers of Alamanic speech, in general, consider themselves to be speaking a dialect of German; speakers of Neapolitan consider themselves to be speakers of a dialect of Italian.
 
The example made of telling a Scotsman that he was English is similarly foolish.

You may consider it foolish, but it is a good analogy to the reactions you are likely to get.

I was not speaking of history but of current people's perception and reaction.

So I reiterate.

Going to Alsace and telling people they are german or speak german is going to be as well received as telling Scots they are english.

And just for the record, I am alsatian, my familly has been in Alsace since the end of the 30 year war at least ( both side ) and I've lived more than half my life in Alsace. So I think I am in a rather good position to know what the current mood in Alsace is.
 
Given such facts, why the hell are the Germans always despicted as the bad guys?

Because in 1914 the Germans were so belligerent that they planned to ask the French for a couple of fortresses "as a guarantee of neutrality" just to force them into the war and so stupid that they couldn't comprehend that Britain would defend Belgium. And because, had they won, most of the rest of Europe would've been as free as the communist satellites in 1950. Every complaint you may raise against the United States one would've raised tenfold in Wilhelmine Europe. It would not have been a place that any non-German would have enjoyed living in.

Well, the only victorious treaty that Germany did sign in the great war is Brest-Litovsk and its anything but moderate. Germany lengthened the war in the East by refusing a more moderate version the year before, and then because the Soviets were powerless, they spent the year after signing the treaty worsening it through the campaign for the Caucasus.

Completely wrong, what happened is that the Bolsheviks refused to give in to the Germans' initial demands, which were based on the frontlines, and gave them a few months to occupy as much territory as they wanted before finally being left with no choice but to give in to worse demands.

It's amazing how Western schools try to make WWI so black and white. Certainly understandable with WW2, but with all the propaganda I got about those evil baby killing Huns, I was surprised when I started doing research on my own and found out it wasn't nearly so morally clear.

Schoolbooks maybe, but everything I've seen or read about WWI made in the West either makes the 2 sides morally equivalent or favors Germany. And this forum is full of people who think the world would have been a better place had the CP won.
 

MrP

Banned
Schoolbooks maybe, but everything I've seen or read about WWI made in the West either makes the 2 sides morally equivalent or favors Germany. And this forum is full of people who think the world would have been a better place had the CP won.

Tbh, the gist I got from GCSE History was "WWI was bad, mmkay. Many people died. Politicians and generals were to blame." While there was class- or ideology-based condemnation, I honestly recall nothing centred on nationality. But that was about 1994-6, so it may well be different now.
 
My sense is that Germany had persuaded themselves that a war was likely.
Agreed, just about all the major powers could fall into this sense.

The german regime felt that they were more likely to win in 1914 than later.
Time was very much against her and the G-staff understood this clearly. Russia's super quick recovery from 1905 along with (as stated earlier) her (as well as recent French) new conscription numbers only fanned the flames of fear. Just look at her strategic position and you would have to understand her paranoia. Her post-Bismarck diplomacy put her in such a horrid position ... but one she was in nonetheless.

So they decided to start the war.
You seem to forget that although given a 'blank check' it was still the 'dead man walking' Austria-Hungary's move to make in 1914. More to the point for Germany was the Czar. I think Russian mobilization decided Germany's actions more than anything else.

They had no rational identifiable objectives in July 1914, once war started they had to think of things they wanted.

Yeah probably. Again I think most nations held national 'wants' and things that they would like to impose on their neighbors but no country had these chisseled in stone. I think we are trying to picture some sacred document in a glass case in a Hallway in Postdam with a hammer next to it under which a sign reads WARNING! SECRET WAR AIMS: BREAK ONLY IN CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAR! . These things developed over time and changed as the war changed. About the only aims I can see any country have with certainty is Frances desire to have the 'lost territories' back.
 
I'm one of those people who think the world would be a better place if the CP won WW1. While the Kaiserriech may not be a utopia it sure as hell beats Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and its continued existence as a superpower would throttle Hitler and counterbalance Stalin, not to mention avoiding the holocaust.
 
I'm one of those people who think the world would be a better place if the CP won WW1. While the Kaiserriech may not be a utopia it sure as hell beats Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and its continued existence as a superpower would throttle Hitler and counterbalance Stalin, not to mention avoiding the holocaust.

My own position is that the nothing is inevitable, therefore nothing necessarily makes the world a better place. CP victory world could turn out rather shit. It could turn out overall okay. Non-CP-victory world could turn out much better, or much worse, than OTL.

If nothing can be effectively judged by its consequences, everything must be judged on moral merit. The Kaiserreich circa 1917 does rather badly on that front.
 
The Kaiserriech of 1917 would probably be beter described as the H & L Riech, and yes by then it had evolved under the stresses of war into a radical state, much the same way as Russia did.

But in 1914/5 that wasn't the case, it was more like a democracy needing the kinks ironed out. It was more 'flawed in execution' with the flighty Kaiser having a lot of power than 'morally evil' like Hitler who wanted to enslave and genocide.
 
Top