no war in 1914. whats German future?

This word 'everybody' is wantonly abused. What about Hans on the docks at Hamburg?

Well, he was probably reading the Echo or the Morgenpost and had friends working at Blohm & Voss, where they built the torpedo boats. He may have been more concerned about Britain, all told, since that was a direct threat to his livelihood, but it is unlikely his opinion of Russia would have been high. Especially if he was a Social Democrat, which, for a Schauer- or Quartiersmann, is likely.
 
Well, he was probably reading the Echo or the Morgenpost and had friends working at Blohm & Voss, where they built the torpedo boats. He may have been more concerned about Britain, all told, since that was a direct threat to his livelihood, but it is unlikely his opinion of Russia would have been high. Especially if he was a Social Democrat, which, for a Schauer- or Quartiersmann, is likely.

Oh, sure: after all, the socialists ended up being staunchly pro-war, after all. But I think he probably had a lot of things higher on his mind than an eternal racial conflict against Slavs. I'm not saying everybody got on: that would be a pretty silly thing to say in the decade leading up to a great war. I'm speaking against the caricaturing of national populations as monoliths obsessed with international struggle.
 

Inhato

Banned
But I think he probably had a lot of things higher on his mind than an eternal racial conflict against Slavs.
Why not? A common man or worker can be just as racist as socialists. There is no reason that common "average Joes" are somehow immune to the idea of racism or desiring war.
Anti-slavic(and even more anti-Polish) feelings were pretty widespread in German society, especially in old Prussian territories where this was somewhat part of cultural tradition.
 
Possibly my intention with that comment was unclear because I quoted too selectively in my zeal not to clutter things up; my apologies.

Why not? A common man or worker can be just as racist as socialists. There is no reason that common "average Joes" are somehow immune to the idea of racism or desiring war.

Why are 'worker' and 'socialist' mutually exclusive categories? Why are socialists assumed to be racist? I guess it's a typo for nationalist?

Anyway, sure he can be, but:

a) He generally cares more about food on the table. So, in the end, does everyone, but he faces the prospect of food not being on the table, so...

b) Following from that, working class prejudice is generally against people supposedly keeping the bread off the table rather than supposedly menacing the international position of the nation. Where I come from, the victims of working-class racism were the Catholic Irish and the Italians, not the Germans about whom the jingo press were in a fankle. It took some time for anti-German prejudice to catch during the war, it didn't last, and it got some of its life from anti-semitic undertones.

Similarly, the Bohemian-German working classes among whom the early forms of Nazism arose were notoriously anti-Czech because the Czechs were competition. But Hansi from Hamburg? I can imagine that he doesn't like Poles much - although the Poles in the Ruhr seem if anything to have assimilated faster than the Irish in the west of Scotland, thanks no doubt to the religion issue - and that he thinks Russia is a strange, threatening, barbaric country, as the majority of western Europeans do.

That doesn't translate into membership of the Pan-German League or any other urgent concern for foreign policy matters, which brings me to...

c) The workers, in a time of strikes, socialist parliamentary ascent, and middle-class anxiety, have obvious reasons to be opposed to some of the key constituencies of chauvinistic nationalism and imperialism at home.

And I do recall hearing somewhere that the German masses, having been told that the war was in self-defence by the the SDP and others, were shocked to see their country occupy Ukraine, though I can't remember where and wouldn't vouch for it.

Anti-slavic(and even more anti-Polish) feelings were pretty widespread in German society, especially in old Prussian territories where this was somewhat part of cultural tradition.

The question here is not whether the working classes in the different countries could be convinced to fight each-other: we know that they were. It's whether they were going to demand a fight in the absence of any other reason for one, for which I see no evidence at all.
 

Inhato

Banned
a) He generally cares more about food on the table. So, in the end, does everyone, but he faces the prospect of food not being on the table, so...
That's pretty idealistic. There are people who will go hungry if it only means people they hate die.
working class prejudice is generally against people supposedly keeping the bread off the table rather than supposedly menacing the international position of the nation.
That seems an ideological assumption.
- although the Poles in the Ruhr seem if anything to have assimilated faster than the Irish in the west of Scotland, thanks no doubt to the religion issue
Contrary to popular belief Poles in Ruhr didn't assimilate that well. Most of them simply left to France and Belgium in 20s.


But Hansi from Hamburg?
I find the belief that common people are innocent lambs manipulated by evil politicians into things dangerously naive.

The question here is not whether the working classes in the different countries could be convinced to fight each-other
Again the assumption is that they are in position where others are convincing them. Seems ideological to assume so. One can also imagine that the "working classes" are convincing politicians to wage war.
It's whether they were going to demand a fight in the absence of any other reason for one, for which I see no evidence at all.
Humans can imagine any set of reasons just to justify their hate working.
 
That's pretty idealistic. There are people who will go hungry if it only means people they hate die.

Thinking that everybody in the end thinks with his belly is now 'idealism'?

If boats were on land, and churches on sea...

That seems an ideological assumption.

So's everything. I gave my examples, let's see yours.

Contrary to popular belief Poles in Ruhr didn't assimilate that well. Most of them simply left to France in 20s.

What's your source on this? I've never heard it. Does it apply only to very recent migrants rather than to people who came in earlier decades and, you know, assimilated?

I know for a fact that, in spite of the wide-spread working-class anti-Slavic racism in Vienna, about a third of Viennese have some Czech in them and you see Czech names all over the place.

But again, the case is unexceptional.

I find the belief that common people are innocent lambs manipulated by evil politicians into things dangerously naive.

I find it really ironic that I, the member of the Church of Scotland, am being lectured about Total Depravity.

There are numerous references to working-class racism in my response to this thread. I myself am by hereditary a member of precisely that class to whom I ascribe the most jingoistic nationalism and I'd take offense to anyone denying that us lower-middle-class folks are also the common people.

And where do I call politicians 'evil'? They too were at the mercy of their circumstances and values. We'd all be better off if we could acknowledge that disagreeing with you doesn't make somebody evil.

So kindly quit the Eeyore-ism and provide historical facts.

Again the assumption is that they are in position where others are convincing them. Seems ideological to assume so. One can also imagine that the "working classes" are convincing politicians to wage war.

Which county in 1914 had a working-class head-of-government or foreign minister? The working classes didn't make the decision to go to war, so obviously they were convinced to go along with it. Convinced doesn't mean coerced, it just means convinced. It is related to 'conviction'. There's nothing dirty about it.

Yes, I have an ideology, like everybody does. 'Ideological' is not an excuse to to respond to your opponent's points.

Humans can imagine any set of reasons just to justify their hate working.

Would you care to give us some in writing?

Not all countries are at war all the time, which seems fairly compelling evidence that people are capable of experiencing that state known as 'peace' without breaking out in a rash.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree with I blame Communism.

There are many developments, particularly in Germany, that will reduce the likelohood of war for the future. The rise of the SPD, the increasing likelihood of Alsace-Lorraine becoming a state, the problems the Kaiser poses frequently, the rising costs of naval armament without being able to outcompete Britain.

And then the question is how changes in Europe will affect the alliances.

Question 1: at the moment Germany has to realize that it's too late to defeat Russia in a war, will Britain still join a war against Germany on the side of this Russia?

Question 2: Assuming Austria-Hungary partitions, and Italy fulfilling the Irredentista versus AH, wouldn't France be a natural enemy? And hence Germany a natural ally? And wouldn't Germany, after loosing its most important ally, be very careful and defensive?
 
I agree with IBC, too.

Alsace-Lorraine was quickly ceasing to be an issue for French politicians. If Kiderlen-Wächter had managed the Morocco Crisis differently he could have secured a good relationship with France. Even with Agadir the French leaders wanted to have peace with Germany, especially Caillaux and even the conservative Poincare who tried to come to a detente with Germany at the expense of Alsace. It was the alliance with Russia which brought them near war and the German declaration of war on France which brought them actually into the war. If Germany had abstained from that and the DOW on Russia like offered in the OP there was no reason to assume France would attack Germany.

It is also difficult to imagine that Germany would try to start a war with Russia after 1916. One of the reasons the military officials pushed for war was beause they thought that after 1916 any war against Russia would end in a defeat. After 1916 it would become increasingly unlikely that Germany would want war with Russia. William II will not change that. Yes, he had a lose mouth, he was great in bellicose speeches, offending other nations and furthering tensions with his meddling in foreign affairs. But he was against Agadir and had to be convinced to send the ship, which was not easy. He was also against war even on the eve of ww1. There are many remarks of military officials who were angered by the timid emperor, whom they saw as a coward.

The SPD was willing to support the war yes. That does not mean, as IBC already explained, that they wanted to go to war on their own. The SPD was strongly associated with the peace movement and although they tried to be with the government in the crisis, they did that mostly to be accepted as a "mainstream" party. And not all socialists were happy with this decision too. There was a reason for the split into SPD and USPD and it was precisely the war. The liberal parties will also gain more and more influence and together with the SPD get at some point a reform through which will give more powers to the parliament without a war.

Britain will also have enough other domestic problems at hand, Ireland and India are already mentioned. Besides that, after the naval arms race also coming to a halt and a German-British understanding about the colonial spheres which was struck right before the beginning of the war but never come to implementation, the tensions between those two states are greatly decreased. Britain had already more growing tensions with Russia (again). And Russia knew perfectly well that it could not rely on France in a war with the UK. It might very well had to suffer an all-out bashing in case Germany and A-H would seize the opportunity and if anybody but rational people are at the helm they would abstain from war.

A-H will do hell and go on a war alone in the Balkans. They knew that Italy just waited for an opportunity and Russia was a deterrent strong enough for that. How internal strife in A-H would end is also not set in stone. Maybe that would lead to war, but I found a civil war without much outside intervention much more probable than a world war.

Things could indeed have gone quiet differently. And to repeat IBC's mantra: nothing is inevitable.

Kind regards,
G.
 

Inhato

Banned
Maybe that would lead to war, but I found a civil war without much outside intervention much more probable than a world war
A civil war in AH without outside intervention is impossible since it contained groups that existed externally and were of importance to external states:Germans(of vital importance to Germany), Poles(besides Poles important to Germany and Russia to keep them down and control), Ukrainians(important to Russia and Germany).

The takeover of any AH territories such as Galicia or Bohemia with its industry by external states would change the face of European balance of power. Thus it is factor that would increase the chance of war tremendously.
 
Top