Was Britain Right to Enter WWI?

[TDM]

That Russia expected France to support them for Russia supporting Serbia per full mobilization?

Germany & AH made it rather easy for France to justify doing so. But I was actually referring the the long history between AH and Russia in the region meaning Russia did not suddenly support Serbia out of the blue for some unfathomable reason as some posts here would seem to think. For instance comparing Russian relationship with Serbia, to Russias relationship with Luxembourg,

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

Yet Italy is to be admired for being a turncoat?
That's really funny.
Russia didn't have a valid casus belli in 1914

Turncoat not really? The failure of the other parties to uphold their end of the treaty indicated a rather lacking amount of care towards the treaty so, holding Italy to it is a bit much

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

Germany & AH made it rather easy for France to justify doing so. But I was actually referring the the long history between AH and Russia in the region meaning Russia did not suddenly support Serbia out of the blue for some unfathomable reason as some posts here would seem to think. For instance comparing Russian relationship with Serbia, to Russias relationship with Luxembourg,

Well I have to agree here the only reason france needed to jump on the doggie pile was their treaty with Russia. Though I still stand by comparing Serbia and Luxembourg relationship with Russia flawed.

 

[Deleted member 160141]

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.

Exactly. "Protecting the Slavs against Turkey/Austria" and "Protecting Orthodoxy against Turkey/Austria" was a Russian ideological point since the 18th century, and it was their excuse for interfering in Ottoman internal affairs all the way up until 1914. Thus, on one hand you have the debt to the British, and on the other you have the jingoists, and a lot of propaganda against the Germans leading up to 1914, so backing away from WW1 would make the Russian government look like a wuss and a bitch to everyone, including its own civilians. And right at that moment, it had more than enough to worry about from its civilians even without the huge loss of face and legitimacy that that would cause.

Again, it's all about trying not to look like a wuss and a bitch, because looking like a wuss means that other nations can question your international arrangements or your ability to protect your vassals.

 

[marathag]

For instance comparing Russian relationship with Serbia, to Russias relationship with Luxembourg

Which is true, as far as treaties. If Serbian Independence was so important to the Tsar, should have signed a treaty stating such in guarantee of Independence, plus military support, in a secret or not so secret provision.

Otherwise, Russia had just as much right to invade Germany from their crossing the Luxembourg border, for non-treaty support

 

[marathag]

ur ability to protect your vassals

Serbia wasn't a vassal or protectorate of Russia.
Not even ties via Nobility, since the Black Hand exterminated the Dynasty that had minor marriage links to Russia

 

[mial42]

...


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.

No. Pay close attention to these sentences:

"Mobilization meant war" in 1914 because mobilization meant war to Germany: the German war plan mandated that special units of the German standing army would attack Belgium and Luxemburg immediately after mobilization was ordered, and long before it was completed. (In fact Germany invaded Luxemburg on August 1, the same day on which it ordered full mobilization.) Thus Germany had no pure "mobilization" plan, but rather had a "mobilization and attack" plan under which mobilizing and attacking would be undertaken simultaneously.

Germany has no mobilization only plan. There is no distinction between mobilization and war for Germany. The mobilization plan and war plan are one and the same. This is absolutely not the same as the other Great Powers. For them, mobilization and war are separate. France and Russia were not committed to attacking Germany on M+15. They were committed to attacking Germany on M+15 in the event of war. Germany, on the other hand, was committed to attacking Belgium and Luxembourg no matter what on M+0. Germany was, in fact, the only power with such a schedule, that committed itself in that way.

This is not to suggest that Germany bears sole responsibility for WW1 (that's a different argument), only that France/Russia/A-H/Britain/Italy/Belgium/everyone else were not committed to attack by mobilization (as you claimed) while Germany was.

 

[TDM]

Yes, German troops teleported on the day of the mobilization order to their position and commenced to attack. Wait, this isnt the ASB forum...

Being some what quicker and their mustering points being closer, they didn't need ASB teleportation to do so.

Now you might say but why should German mobilisation be treated differently from Russian mobilisation just because the Germans are faster and closer, and the Russians slower with more distance to travel. Especially when the prevailing attitude was he who attacks first wins first. But it's not about the abstract fairness, it's about everyone knowing at the time that a partial internal Russian mobilisation does not mean the Russian army is about to leap across Europe like a dagger aimed at the heart of Germany. The Germans certainly knew this given the order they moved their troops!

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.

Germany and AH spent a lot of chunking ultimatums out the refusal of which meant war.

Germanies ultimatum kind of loses it's value as an effort to avoid war when you remember that it had been urging AH to get on with it and that it had AH's back as per the plan

 

[Deleted member 160141]

Serbia wasn't a vassal or protectorate of Russia.
Not even ties via Nobility, since the Black Hand exterminated the Dynasty that had minor marriage links to Russia

No, it wasn't. It fell under "international arrangements". Specificially as "prerequisite for achievement".

Russia has pretensions to being Big Brother to the Slavs as part of ideology, so Serbia is one of those nations they have on their list of things to cross off before they can unlock Super-Slav Empire ==> foreign interest ==> "international arrangement".

 

[TDM]

Which is true, as far as treaties. If Serbian Independence was so important to the Tsar, should have signed a treaty stating such in guarantee of Independence, plus military support, in a secret or not so secret provision.

look you can concentrate just on weather or not there was a treaty to make some kind of abstract point, or you can look as what was going and had been going on at the time. Because I assure that what all those countries were doing at the time

Otherwise, Russia had just as much right to invade Germany from their crossing the Luxembourg border, for non-treaty support

Germany was certainly crossing a lot of borders weren't they?

Also what are you inferring by "Non treaty support", you seem to really believe that the only justified reason for declaring war is the abstract existence of a pre-existing treaty rather than the actions of people? That's really not supported by history.

 

[Xgentis]

Well I have to agree here the only reason france needed to jump on the doggie pile was their treaty with Russia. Though I still stand by comparing Serbia and Luxembourg relationship with Russia flawed.

They didn't jump, why peoples forget that France was declared war on after an ultimatum to surrender border fortress?

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

They didn't jump, why peoples forget that France was declared war on after an ultimatum to surrender border fortress?

You missed the point of what I meant and said and even if intended its hyperbolic in nature. The whole point of my statement has little to do with what france did but why they would do it. The point is if france wish to join in all they needed to do is cite their treaty nothing else it isn't a comment on what they did otherwise I would bring the ultimatum up.

Now to discuss that ultimatum
in terms of your response i find while you are correct that they only declared after the ultimatum. The reason I would say nobody is bringing it up is because I don't really think anybody is under any illusion they wouldn't of declared war it was just a matter of time before they did. I really doubt they would of left Russia to hang

 

[marathag]

That's really not supported by history.

Just 'modern' Europe, after Napoleon dis his thing across Europe, Egypt and Russia

 

[Tibi088]

No. Pay close attention to these sentences:


Germany has no mobilization only plan. There is no distinction between mobilization and war for Germany. The mobilization plan and war plan are one and the same. This is absolutely not the same as the other Great Powers. For them, mobilization and war are separate. France and Russia were not committed to attacking Germany on M+15. They were committed to attacking Germany on M+15 in the event of war. Germany, on the other hand, was committed to attacking Belgium and Luxembourg no matter what on M+0. Germany was, in fact, the only power with such a schedule, that committed itself in that way.

This is not to suggest that Germany bears sole responsibility for WW1 (that's a different argument), only that France/Russia/A-H/Britain/Italy/Belgium/everyone else were not committed to attack by mobilization (as you claimed) while Germany was.

I have based my claim on Zuber - given the chapter he analyzes the french and russian mobilization plans and concludes that from mobilization order they had a timetable to war. Further Russia has commited to attack Germany before he completed his mobilization as well - so Russia too was committed to attack and mobilize simultaenously from the 15th day of mobilization.

You cited a text that proves that Germany has such a timetable - you have successfully proven which I never disputed, good for you. But that says nothing of France and Russia, only you assure us that they were different. Maybe you could base that claim on something else than your assertions - like I did with the opposite?

Being some what quicker and their mustering points being closer, they didn't need ASB teleportation to do so.

Now you might say but whey should German mobilisation be treated differently from Russian mobilisation just because the germen are faster and closer, and the Russians slower with more distance to travel. Especially when the prevailing attitude was he who attacks first wins first. But it's not about the abstract fairness, it's about everyone knowing at the time that a partial internal Russian mobilisation does not mean the Russian army is about to leap across Europe like a dagger aimed at the heart of Germany. The Germans certainly knew this given the order they moved their troops!


Germany and AH spent a lot of chunking ultimatums out the refusal of which meant war.

Germanies ultimatum kind of loses it's value as an effort to avoid war when you remember that it had been urging AH to get on with it and that it had AH's back as per the plan

And do you know what ultimatums are good for? They are a clear cut action, a last attampt to save peace. Why is it that Russia never issued an ultimatum to Austria? Or any statement that an austrian attack on Serbia means war? Or setting boundaries that Austria can not cross on the even of victory? A refusal of the german ultimatum makes it evident that they were not going to stand by as Austria fights Serbia. So why not make a clear cut case. Why did France not present an ultimatum to Germany, or even declared war on Germany as it was required by its alliance with Russia after Germany declared war on Russia? Would anyone here seriously argue that France would have let Russia fight Germany and Austria alone? I dont have the answer - my guess is that France has correctly guessed that the germans are attacking first - and thus would be forced to declare war on them facing the diplomatic onus of having done so. Also ambiguity - not giving an opponent a clear answer about the possibility of hostilities favours the side that mobilizes slower (Russia). OTL Russia has won 2 days and some thanks to their preparation to war measures and being first to mobilize - again we are speaking of very tight and short timetables - 2 days are a lot.

Edit: and dont forget the greatest effect of Russian ambiguity: The complete bothcing of the Austrian mobilization plans. Dont get me wrong, Conrad was an idiot to go with a Serbia only mobilization plan before making sure of Russian intentions. But even he would not have ignored it if Russia stated on say they 25th of July - the day the serbians answered the ultimatum - that they will fight if austria declares war.

 

[Aber]

And do you know what ultimatums are good for? They are a clear cut action, a last attampt to save peace.

Not always.

The German message to France to hand over its border fortresses wasn't really an attempt to save peace, it was to engineer an advantageous position for war. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia .

Why is it that Russia never issued an ultimatum to Austria?

Because they were not in a hurry to start a war.

Germany was committed to attacking Belgium and Luxembourg no matter what on M+0 - and did so. For other countries mobilisation did not automatically mean they were committed to war.

 

[Sarthak]

Germany was committed to attacking Belgium and Luxembourg no matter what on M+0 - and did so. For other countries mobilisation did not automatically mean they were committed to war.

to illustrate this point. Both Russia and France sent peace offers including non-partisan tribunals to Germany after they mobilized during 30 July to 1 august

 

[Tibi088]

Not always.

The German message to France to hand over its border fortresses wasn't really an attempt to save peace, it was to engineer an advantageous position for war. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia .


Because they were not in a hurry to start a war.

Germany was committed to attacking Belgium and Luxembourg no matter what on M+0 - and did so. For other countries mobilisation did not automatically mean they were committed to war.

I agree about the ultimatum to France - but again would you argue that France was going to disrespect its alliance with Russia and not declare war on Germany? The truth is that in accordance with their treaty obligatios they should have declared war on Germany after the german declaration of war with Russia.

They had decided that there will be a war. They were trying to - very successfully - gain adventage by muddying the water. Again a completed mobilization before the start of hostilities would have been a huge boon and adventage to the Franco-Russian alliance - thats a perfectly good reason to not sending ultimatums or declarations of war even when you are obliged to. I mean it was a very good move both diplomatically and strategically - but that does not mean Russia had not opted for war. The german ultimatum made it very clear that if Russia mobilizes in the present ocassion its a casus belli.

Luxembourg on M+0 and Belgium a few days later - but occupying the strategically imporant Luxembourg does not mean WWI. No great power regarded it as a casus belli.
And again that the commitment is made for M+2, M+8 or M+15 does not make a difference - the commitment is there. If i take a gun to a meeting intending to shoot someone but am shot first does not absolve me of planning to murder him.

 

[Tibi088]

to illustrate this point. Both Russia and France sent peace offers including non-partisan tribunals to Germany after they mobilized during 30 July to 1 august

If France and russia wanted to keep the peace they could have done something very simple: not starting to mobilize their full forces (against Germany). They both started mobilization earlier than the germans - and any day, hour they gained by delaying the german mobilization was a win for them. The german mobilization was only ordered after Russia refused to stop its own mobilization in the full knowledge that doing so means war.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I agree about the ultimatum to France - but again would you argue that France was going to disrespect its alliance with Russia and not declare war on Germany? The truth is that in accordance with their treaty obligatios they should have declared war on Germany after the german declaration of war with Russia.

They had decided that there will be a war. They were trying to - very successfully - gain adventage by muddying the water. Again a completed mobilization before the start of hostilities would have been a huge boon and adventage to the Franco-Russian alliance - thats a perfectly good reason to not sending ultimatums or declarations of war even when you are obliged to. I mean it was a very good move both diplomatically and strategically - but that does not mean Russia had not opted for war. The german ultimatum made it very clear that if Russia mobilizes in the present ocassion its a casus belli.

Luxembourg on M+0 and Belgium a few days later - but occupying the strategically imporant Luxembourg does not mean WWI. No great power regarded it as a casus belli.
And again that the commitment is made for M+2, M+8 or M+15 does not make a difference - the commitment is there. If i take a gun to a meeting intending to shoot someone but am shot first does not absolve me of planning to murder him.

If France and russia wanted to keep the peace they could have done something very simple: not starting to mobilize their full forces (against Germany). They both started mobilization earlier than the germans - and any day, hour they gained by delaying the german mobilization was a win for them. The german mobilization was only ordered after Russia refused to stop its own mobilization in the full knowledge that doing so means war.

The point about the different mobilisation plans is not that France and Russia would draw back from war but that they could draw back from war.

Germany was actually breaking international treaties from Day One of their mobilisation. French and Russian (and German) mobilisations were certainly hostile actions. But only the Germans equated a hostile action with a move to war.

Luxembourg could indeed mean WW1 - it almost triggered a Franco-German war in 1867 and was only resolved by Prussia withdrawing its troops from Luxembourg and guaranteeing the independence of the state under the Treaty of London. Which they broke on August 1 1914.

 

[Sarthak]

If France and russia wanted to keep the peace they could have done something very simple: not starting to mobilize their full forces (against Germany). They both started mobilization earlier than the germans - and any day, hour they gained by delaying the german mobilization was a win for them. The german mobilization was only ordered after Russia refused to stop its own mobilization in the full knowledge that doing so means war.

I am not sure how this is being lost on you but mobilization is not declaration of war.
During the Crimean War, Prussia and Sweden-Norway mobilized partially whilst Austria fully mobilized. They didn't join the war.
During the Russo-Turkish War of 1878 Austria and Germany mobilized partially again.
During the American Spanish War, Canadian and British North American troops were partially mobilized.
During the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, Britain did mobilize the Royal Navy and the Qing feebly did mobilize its northern armies near beijing.
Mobilization =/= War.