Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Yet Italy is to be admired for being a turncoat?
That's really funny.
Russia didn't have a valid casus belli in 1914
Aphrodite
Banned
All military plans will eventually go on the offensive. No country will win standing on the defensive.
None of this changes that it was Austria that declared war on Serbia or Germany that declared war on Russia, Belgium and France
marathag
Banned
So you admit mobilization means war, and attacking.
Doesn't sound like a defensive pact at all.
Yes, but the two powers who began this whole issue were Austria and Russia. If Russia did not want to protect Serbia, France and Britain certainly would not have particularly cared. The Russians were afraid of Austria trying to annex Serbia, as they did Bosnia, when in fact, the Hungarians had demanded that the Austrians promise not to annex any territory in a subsequent war, worried as they were about increasing the Slavic population of the Empire. Bosnia was a mess, and while to the Russians it was a threat, to the Austrians it was a lesson that further territorial acquisition was very dangerous to the Empire.
It is in all but name though. The lesson of the Franco-Prussian War was that the power that could more efficiently mobilize their armies would overwhelm the slower power. This is why all the countries began mobilizing before the actual beginning of hostilities. If you were caught with your pants down, so to speak, the thinking went that you would be, as the French were in 1870, doomed. The thinking went, that if, say Russia, did not mobilize, that even Austria would have a massive advantage. Of course, we know that many of these powers' militaries were terribly managed, in hindsight. At the time, the risks of being caught unawares were unacceptable, if you failed to mobilize in time you had lost the war before it had even started. This is why everyone imagined the war would be very quick and full of some decisive battles before one power would overwhelm the other. Germany mobilized because Russia could only mobilize against both Austria and Germany. Their planning, was, in this way, deficient since it forced the Germans to mobilize. Of course, the French, who were spitting for a fight anyways, weren't going to let the Germans get one over on them.
Once the mobilizations begin, they cannot be stopped unless everyone mutually agrees to mobilize. This is a difficult task, but, I think, not impossible with hindsight certainly. I think Russia would acquiesce to accept international control of the investigation of the Black Hand, led by Austria, sure, but monitored by the other powers, including Russia. The Austrians got too aggressive, their bullheadedness certainly did not leave the Russians a lot of room to maneuver, granted the Russians did not make a genuine attempt to compromise either. The consequences for both empires, obviously, was dire.
Germany attacked effectively ON mobilisation, not after a 2 week delay where there is still a chance to defuse the situation.
Germany is the outlier; Austria only declared war on Russia 5 days after Germany because of German pressure.
The point is that when Russia and France ordered mobilization - and they both did so before Germany did - with accordance with their military agreements - which they kept -ment that they were commited to attack germany 15 days later. Both knew this and in full knowledge of this they proceeded - before Germany mobilized and before Germany declared war on anyone.
Germany was also commited to attack France from the moment they ordered mobilization - and they did order mobilization before they knew that France has ordered mobilization.
France, Russia (not to forget first and foremost Serbia with the Black Hand), and Germany and Austria - these were all responsible for the Great War breaking out. Britain and Grey if he was upfront with at the very least his own government could have maybe prevented it - as this war happening was incredibly contrary to british interests as it seemed sure to produce at the end of it a continental hegemon - be its name Germany or Russia (none thought at the time that both would fall).
marathag
Banned
The Russin choice was binary.
Support Serbia, by full mobilization against both Germany and A-H, since the Tsar never asked for seperate warplanes for each.
2nd Choice was to not to Fully mobilize against both Germany and A-H, leaving Serbia alone in what would be the 3rd Balkan War
Yes, German troops teleported on the day of the mobilization order to their position and commenced to attack. Wait, this isnt the ASB forum...
edit: also defuse the situation? Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia and demand that Russia stops mobilization (which we know has Russia attacking Germany) because germany would have to start to mobilize as well. Russia refused - and refusing an ultimatum means war. I have no idea how you want to defuse the situation after that.
Last edited:
As highlighted above, the declaration of war between Austria and Russia was one of the last to happen; both countries could mobilise without automatically going to war - IIRC this happened during one of the Balkan crises.
Yes, they invaded Luxembourg on 1 August, but using trains rather than teleports.
No you dont remeber correctly. Russia did not mobilize during the Balkan wars -it detained the age class that should have been sent home while the new recruits arrived on schedule - this raised its troop strength to nearly wartime level on the districts this happened in - it wasnt universal.
And this is relevant because invading luxemburg means war automatically with France or Russia? I mean there are speculations that even Belgium might have staid neutral if it wasnt invade north of the Meuse - there is no way in hell Luxemburg could have stayed out of this.
The point of the french and russian warplane was a coordinated attack against Germany as soon as possible - this meant in practice the 15th day of mobilization. If they could have done it earlier they would have done it. But mobilization ment that they were commited to attack - the same as Germany.
the situation is so confusing that even the voting system broke itself.The votes add up to 103.1%.
The arguments appear to be circular and unresolveable, which is why WW1 is far more interesting to me these days than WW2; there is no definite bad guy and the sides are close enough for the result to go either way.
mial42
Gone Fishin'
Bolding the important parts.
You're missing a key distinction. In the event of war Russia and France committed to attacking on M+15. They did not commit to attacking on M+15 under all circumstances. Thus mobilization did not mean war for Russia or France (or A-H, Italy, or Britain). The outlier was Germany, whose mobilization plan (NOT in the event of war, in the event of mobilization) required the invasions of Belgium (to seize Liege) and Luxembourg. That's the difference between Germany and the rest of the Great Powers on the eve of WW1: All of them could have mobilized without war (as A-H did a few years prior), but Germany could not. Quoting from "The Cult of the Offensive" by Van Evera:
tl;dr: Mobilization did not commit any Great Power to attack except for Germany.
TDM
Kicked
Treaties have meaning true, but that doesn't mean anyone who went to war without one wasn't justified, and there is a massive excluded middle between mutual treaty and complete disinterest except for the lolz
You type 'Muh Slavic Brothers being oppressed' as a dismissal but 5 minutes looking at the previous decades will tell you that Russia and AH were in this game right from the start.
'Muh Slavic Brothers being oppressed' is about was reductionist as "muh multi ethnic empire is cracking under ethno-nationalism, yo"
Last edited:
...
The text you cite is speaking about a german war plane - which you have gone such a length to make a point it being different than mobilization in my post. Which is it?
Further your text only argues that Germany was committed to attack from the point of mobilization which I never disputed. What I disputed was that Germany was the only power who has commited itself in such a way. The simple fact that Germany acted faster and tried to secure some strategically importnat points when already at war doesnt mean it was the only power with such a mobilization schedule. Russia went so far as to agree to attack the germans with not completly mobilized armies just to attack on the same day as France and made good on its commitment - one of the reasons of Tannenberg.
There is this recurring theme here - some pretending that if Germany had a different mobilization schedule things could have been different - the war might have been avoided in some last ditch effort. But after refusing the german ultimatum to stop mobilization there can be no doubt that Russia was for war and was not simply mobilizing to put pressure on Austria - it was fully aware that mobilization at that point meant war with Germany and went ahead with it. Further Russia started mobilization in secret - according to german intelligence (which was false through not completly as Russia has implemented measures that in other countries was part of the mobilization plan) Russia was mobilizing in secret since the 27th of July - before even the austrian declaration of war on Serbia. This is important because this were the information the german leadership was working with. Germany issued the ultimatum 4 days later - and 4 days are incredibly important when we are talking about throwing millions of men across the borders in 15 days.
The text you cite is speaking about a german war plane - which you have gone such a length to make a point it being different than mobilization in my post. Which is it?
Further your text only argues that Germany was committed to attack from the point of mobilization which I never disputed. What I disputed was that Germany was the only power who has commited itself in such a way. The simple fact that Germany acted faster and tried to secure some strategically importnat points when already at war doesnt mean it was the only power with such a mobilization schedule. Russia went so far as to agree to attack the germans with not completly mobilized armies just to attack on the same day as France and made good on its commitment - one of the reasons of Tannenberg.
There is this recurring theme here - some pretending that if Germany had a different mobilization schedule things could have been different - the war might have been avoided in some last ditch effort. But after refusing the german ultimatum to stop mobilization there can be no doubt that Russia was for war and was not simply mobilizing to put pressure on Austria - it was fully aware that mobilization at that point meant war with Germany and went ahead with it. Further Russia started mobilization in secret - according to german intelligence (which was false through not completly as Russia has implemented measures that in other countries was part of the mobilization plan) Russia was mobilizing in secret since the 27th of July - before even the austrian declaration of war on Serbia. This is important because this were the information the german leadership was working with. Germany issued the ultimatum 4 days later - and 4 days are incredibly important when we are talking about throwing millions of men across the borders in 15 days.
Last edited:
Deleted member 160141
One thing hasn't bee mentioned yet: even if the Russians wanted to go the pan-Slavic route, the royal court knew the army was shit. And yet they went for it, because they were politically indebted to Britain. Why? Well, after the debacle at Tsushima, the Russians needed to rebuild their navy. In fact, it was in some ways a benefit, since the Russian navy could rebuild itself from scratch, and they already had plans for it. Unfortunately, they didn't have near enough money to make up for such a gigantic loss on such short notice, so they were forced to ask abroad. Enter the British, who provided the loan in exchange for a nudge-nudge wink-wink guarantee that the Russian government would repay this favor in some way. This basically meant that Russia would be roped into any British shenanigans for the next decade or so, but it seemed fine enough compared to the prospect of going navy-less.
Then WW1 happened and suddenly the court found itself really wanting to go to war, to the great approval of the British-leaning intelligentsia and British diplomats in St. Petersburg.
That is a complete and total case of whataboutism and really just poor form.
And also that point doesn't work because because one nobody in this thread has brought such a subject and at the time they weren't free it resulted in nuetrality because of it and the Austrian didn't blink at all. Hell its clear they weren't free as Italy literally invaded them. So, in short Austria very much paid the price for breaking that deal. Oh that and your whole argument just being whataboutism.