Sane German response to the Sarajovo murder in July 1914

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The threat to expand via war?

The spectre of Prussian militarism could be used in whatever way it suited antagonistic powers. When France breaks an established international treaty to expand in Morocco, it's just the natural expansion of a colonial power. When Germany tries to get in on it, it's expansionism, militarism, and proof of the nefarious Weltpolitik.

Not to mention, it rings kind of hollow when before the war both France and Russia had higher military expenditure as share of GDP, and France had more soldiers per capita in its standing army in 1914.

I expect the Great Powers recall that Prussia's expansion into the German Empire involved wars with them (Austria & France) and taking territory from several established European nations (Hanover, Saxony & France all unwillingly) rather than from the natives of faraway (& not Christian) colonies. Not that these were unusual but were the only comparable annexations since 1815.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes it's understandable. But the accusation of one society being particularly militaristic rings hollow when other societies expend just as much if not more of their resources and manpower on the military.

I think you’re missing (ignoring?) something key? France and Russia only spent as much and France only conscripted as many to try and keep pace with Germany’s large military. Hence the militarism of Germany accusations.

 

[InMediasRes]

I expect the Great Powers recall that Prussia's expansion into the German Empire involved wars with them (Austria & France) and taking territory from several established European nations (Hanover, Saxony & France all unwillingly) rather than from the natives of faraway (& not Christian) colonies. Not that these were unusual but were the only comparable annexations since 1815.

Then they may also recall that it was France that declared war on Prussia in 1870 with territorial designs on Luxemburg and the Saarland . I also wouldn't say the only comparable annexations, given that Italy also took Venetia and Mantua in 1866.

 

[InMediasRes]

I think you’re missing (ignoring?) something key? France and Russia only spent as much and France only conscripted as many to try and keep pace with Germany’s large military. Hence the militarism of Germany accusations.

That's a rather simplistic solution to a classic arms race. Could one not also argue that Germany increased the size of its military because two antagonistic powers with an alliance aimed at them did the same? Why would the fault for that arms race solely land at Germany's feet?

When in 1913 France introduced a new conscription law while the combined forces of France and Russia already outnumber Germany and Austria Hungary, it's understandable because they felt threatened? But when Germany increases it's military because they feel threatened by two hostile powers on it's borders who are also enlarging their armies, it's aggressive and a sign of Prussian/German militarism? Seems to me there is a double standard in there.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Then they may also recall that it was France that declared war on Prussia in 1870 with territorial designs on Luxemburg and the Saarland . I also wouldn't say the only comparable annexations, given that Italy also took Venetia and Mantua in 1866.

Agreed - although note Italy was acting in concert with Prussia, without whom's active involvement Venetia & Mantua remain in Habsburg hands, and France lost so unable to annex anything for Great Powers to remember. Unfulfilled plans remain just that, and can always be denied or regarded as usual military planning for all eventualities given the lack of proof on the map.

This is not stating that Prussia / Germany were the only Great Power to have expansionist thoughts or put them into practice from 1815 to 1914. Far from it - France was quite happy to accept Nice & Savoy in payment for helping Piedmont seize Lombardy, and - as you state - had hoped for compensation from Prussia for neutrality in 1866. Italy as a state could only be unified through expansion and then the idea of Italia Irredenta. Russia retained hopes of at the very least freeing the Dardanelles after the Crimean War (hence their tacit support for Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia Herzegovina).

And we all seem to forget that diplomacy & warfare up to 1815 was marked by "Peaces" that involved the exchange or plain taking of provinces or colonies and the change in ruling houses on a very regular basis, though this was prior to the rise of nationalism as we understand it.

Just that Prussia / German Empire was the most recent example in Western & Central Europe, and the largest expansion since the height of Napoleon I's Empire. So it is the most fixed in the eyes of Europe's other rulers.

 

[Catsmate]

Prussian militarism was not about wars of expansion. It was about the makeup of German society and the threat that Germany posed.

More the perception , or rather the portrayal, of "Prussian Militarism" as found in other countries.
As had been pointed out German military spending was, per capita, lower than other nations.

 

[Catsmate]

That list is good, but ignores that the German wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 (and Bismarck asking to cut France down in 1873-ish, but Russia/ UK said no) were the largest since Napoleon.

The list was in response to a query about the period 1871 to 1914. Naturally events before 1871 were omitted.

 

[Catsmate]

Just the threat to the balance of power, but the whole war thing is implied in a back hand way. The military in Germany was essentially free of political control. To politicians (who obviously think they’re better at these kinds of things than anyone else), this is a worrying thing.

Will you be supporting this oft stated assertion with evidence? And appropriate comparison to other countries.

 

[Catsmate]

I expect the Great Powers recall that Prussia's expansion into the German Empire involved wars with them (Austria & France) and taking territory from several established European nations (Hanover, Saxony & France all unwillingly) rather than from the natives of faraway (& not Christian) colonies. Not that these were unusual but were the only comparable annexations since 1815.

While the French, Dutch, American and British were still taking bits of territory from unwilling locals well into the twentieth century.

 

[Catsmate]

I think you’re missing (ignoring?) something key? France and Russia only spent as much and France only conscripted as many to try and keep pace with Germany’s large military. Hence the militarism of Germany accusations.

Again, will you be supporting your claims of "reactive militarism" with evidence? France especially was looking for revenge for the humiliating defeat of the Franco-Prussian war.

 

[Catsmate]

That's a rather simplistic solution to a classic arms race. Could one not also argue that Germany increased the size of its military because two antagonistic powers with an alliance aimed at them did the same? Why would the fault for that arms race solely land at Germany's feet?

When in 1913 France introduced a new conscription law while the combined forces of France and Russia already outnumber Germany and Austria Hungary, it's understandable because they felt threatened? But when Germany increases it's military because they feel threatened by two hostile powers on it's borders who are also enlarging their armies, it's aggressive and a sign of Prussian/German militarism? Seems to me there is a double standard in there.

Indeed.
French policy from the 1870s was based on an effort for revenge and the destruction, or diminution, of Germany. Hence the alliance with Russia, the courting Britain, the investment in Russia and the natalist policies.

 

[Catsmate]

Like with Afghanistan in 2001?

Or indeed elsewhere.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

While the French, Dutch, American and British were still taking bits of territory from unwilling locals well into the twentieth century.

Agreed as per an earlier post. Just that for Kings, Emperors, President's & Prime Ministers, the lives & territory of unwilling locals did not seem to matter as much as Christian European subjects at home. Especially not if it was your province that was lost. And - with exception of the Habsburgs - all the Great Powers were playing the Great Game, although they did not attempt to seize another power's colonial territory through warfare. There is no doubt Britain would have reacted strongly should Russia push too hard in Persia or Afghanistan (the threat that pushed Britain into the Triple Entente), and France tried a bluff at Fashoda that was carefully rebuffed by Kitchener.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Again, will you be supporting your claims of "reactive militarism" with evidence? France especially was looking for revenge for the humiliating defeat of the Franco-Prussian war.

I don’t follow you? “Reactive militarism” what’s that? I was explaining why France and Russia spent more as a share of GDP on their militaries (they had smaller GDP) and why France conscripted a higher percentage of it’s population (it has a smaller population).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Will you be supporting this oft stated assertion with evidence? And appropriate comparison to other countries.

You’re unfamiliar with the assertion that the German military was outside the control of the Reichstag? A simple review of the wiki article on the Imperial Constitution or the office of the Reichkanzler would suffice.

As for comparison to other countries, how about the resignation of General Michel when the French government rejected his concentration plans? That indicates a degree of control of military affairs by civilian politicians, no?