War Aims of World War One

Everyone expected a short war in 1914 and ideally for Britain and France it would be fought in German territory so German stuff can be wrecked. I don't think this is a radical notion, everybody was as keen as mustard to invade their neighbour in 1914, conveniently limiting the damage their own nation suffers. This has nothing to do with territorial annexations that Britain did or did not support.

As for the perfidy, I wouldn't think so. The RN swept down into the Heliogoland bight plenty of times in the early war days, but didn't achieve success due to lack of targets. The standing army was deployed and the rest immediately expanded, despite the notion that the war would be over by Christmas. The fact of the matter is that if fighting was to be done on German soil it would be done by Britains allies, so of course the knocking Germany down a peg would be done by Britains allies, hardly a radical notion.
 
Everyone expected a short war in 1914 and ideally for Britain and France it would be fought in German territory so German stuff can be wrecked.

What are your sources for this desire for "wrecking", which as I say contradicts Britain's actual policy at Versailles? Obviously a country which is at war would rather be winning. That hardly implies a desire to make use of earth-scorching tactics.

I don't think this is a radical notion, everybody was as keen as mustard to invade their neighbour in 1914, conveniently limiting the damage their own nation suffers. This has nothing to do with territorial annexations that Britain did or did not support.

What's a radical notion is to suggest that everyone set out to destroy their adversaries' war-fighting capacity rather than just winning. As you say, people expected a short war: short wars are seldom wars of total destruction.

As for the perfidy, I wouldn't think so. The RN swept down into the Heliogoland bight plenty of times in the early war days, but didn't achieve success due to lack of targets. The standing army was deployed and the rest immediately expanded, despite the notion that the war would be over by Christmas. The fact of the matter is that if fighting was to be done on German soil it would be done by Britains allies, so of course the knocking Germany down a peg would be done by Britains allies, hardly a radical notion.

Um, what are you actually trying to say here? "Britain immediately began to up its military forces to continental levels and thus fully take part in the Entente effort on land, but didn't expect to fully take part in the Entente effort on land?" :confused:
 
I remember reading that the governments of Germany and Russia opted to enter the war to distract their people from the ongoing agitation for political reform. In Germany, for example, the Kaiser was able to secure the support for the war of the Social Democrats in the Reichstag (who obviously believed it would be over by Christmas).

The Russians were also interested in gaining access to a warm-water port in the Mediterranean via the Dardanelles, which would likely necessitate a war with Austria and Turkey (at least) to extend their influence into the Balkans.

The British, as I understand it, were concerned with the expanding industrial power of Germany (who were producing more steel and nearly as much coal at this point) as well as the increasing power of the High Seas Fleet. Of course, the actual justification for the British expedition was a pre-existing treaty with Belgium - I'm not actually familiar with the terms of this agreement, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Britain wasn't actually obliged to intervene.

Of coruse, there were numerous other reasons, but my knowledge of them isn't comprehensive.
 
I remember reading that the governments of Germany and Russia opted to enter the war to distract their people from the ongoing agitation for political reform. In Germany, for example, the Kaiser was able to secure the support for the war of the Social Democrats in the Reichstag (who obviously believed it would be over by Christmas).

While, as I said, there's a strong case for that in post-1905 Russia, in other countries including Germany the reverse may in fact be true. The system put in place by Metternich was of course intended to safeguard Europe's elites from The Revolution :)eek:!!), and it did this by trying to prevent wars and get the monarchies to work together against revolutionary agitation.

Of course, his system unravelled and Europe was briefly a diplomatic free-for-all where the best man (who was called Bismarck) won; but Herr Bismarck himself instituted a new system intended to keep the peace, and wasn't well known for getting on well with socialists. He also fought small, limited wars, never on a "revolutionary" basis.

So the consistent theme is that European leaders don't want general war in case it brings about some unwelcome social developments; and of course it eventually did. So why did everything blow up over Serbia, whereas other Balkan Crises since the 1880s had all gone out with a fizzle?

The reasons are many and complex, involving railway timetables and all that, but I've read (in AJP Taylor's Struggle for Mastery in Europe) that one reason was precisely because the socialists, in Germany and Austria in particular, were considered to be nice and patriotic and unlikely to start revolutions. Apparently, although it seems to good to be true, an Austrian minister dismissed fears of revolution by asking who would lead it, with all the top men respectable parliamentarians: "Mr.Bronstein over in the cafe Cental?"

And it must be pointed out that pre-war, German socialists didn't menace the Wilhelmine order of things with raised fist and red flag; they voted the naval expenses.

The Russians were also interested in gaining access to a warm-water port in the Mediterranean via the Dardanelles, which would likely necessitate a war with Austria and Turkey (at least) to extend their influence into the Balkans.

That's an interesting one.

"To the Straits!" became the rallying-cry after the Ottomans entered the war, in large part to dismantle a mechanism (the Armenian Reform Package) put in place in 1913 with British agreement that basically confirmed what the Russians had been saying since the 1830s: they needed pre-eminent influence in the Ottoman Empire to secure themselves at the Straits.

On the other hand, the Russians stuck up for Serbia (Pan-Slavism could be switched on and off at will: the Tsar's government once asked the Ottomans to invade Bulgaria) partly because the creation of a pro-Austrian regime there (and Bulgarian gratitude for Macedonia, with German commercial interests in the country already growing and relations with Russia poor) combined with German kings of Romania and Greece and the Berlin-Baghdad railway would lock Russian influence out of the Balkans and threaten the Straits.

So the interests existed, but it would be wrong to speak of simple Russian aggression and ambitions. What makes the start of WW1 so tragical and farcical is that everybody felt they were reacting to a mortal threat to their own interests.

The British, as I understand it, were concerned with the expanding industrial power of Germany (who were producing more steel and nearly as much coal at this point) as well as the increasing power of the High Seas Fleet. Of course, the actual justification for the British expedition was a pre-existing treaty with Belgium - I'm not actually familiar with the terms of this agreement, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Britain wasn't actually obliged to intervene.

Definitely. "Rape of Belgium!" was as handy - and deceitful - a slogan as "Slavic Brothers!". Britain and France both violated Greek neutrality quite shamelessly during the war.
 
Last edited:
What about the smaller powers like Bulgaria and Serbia that joined later in the war? How was their entry intot he war brought. I know that many of the lesser powers wanted to start, but had various reasons for not joining right away.
 
The various aims listed for Germany are somewhat contradictory. The Alldeutschen wanted all (west)Germanic people united under Germany (which would include the Netherlands, Flanders, German-speaking parts of Switzerland and Austria, and also the Baltic states (which only had a German minority, but still). But keep note that they were just one organization with some influence, not the rulers of Germany. (Wiki says they just had some ten thousand members, although this included influential people.) The industrialists wanted areas with many resources, the military wanted strategically important areas - and even within these groups, opinions differed. Before the war, nobody had a clear plan - something comparable with France's "We want A-L back!"

So, if you want a "CPs win WW1" TL, make the post-war maps as you like. You can always explain that the Germans got a different opinion, or that the losing Allies managed to get some concessions.
 
Top