WI : East First Germany sends 1st and 2nd Armies to East Prussia.

marathag

Banned
Much too harsh. Especially since there is and was no organized effort. Writing off 105 years of historians writing on the subject is a bit much.
But really, ever since 1919 the Germans get the Lions share of blame, when it really rests on the Russian desire to blank check the Serbians, that lead to the assassinations of the King and Queen of Serbia a decade before they set their sights on Franz Ferdinand
 
Much too harsh. Especially since there is and was no organized effort. Writing off 105 years of historians writing on the subject is a bit much.
I'm not writing off 105 years of well-researched, well thought-out histories by competent scholars - whether I agree with their conclusions or not. And while I agree that (for the most part) there has not been an "organized effort" to enforce a "party line" or consensus of scholarship into the matter, it has seemed to me that an informal consensus has been reached - one which, at least in the "Anglosphere", is
heavily skewed toward the traditional "the Entente powers were in the right and only did what needed to be done" interpretation....
Here is an example, from the BBC, an institution which I otherwise have a great deal of respect for:

Hey, if nine out of ten scholars agree......
 
I'm not writing off 105 years of well-researched, well thought-out histories by competent scholars - whether I agree with their conclusions or not. And while I agree that (for the most part) there has not been an "organized effort" to enforce a "party line" or consensus of scholarship into the matter, it has seemed to me that an informal consensus has been reached - one which, at least in the "Anglosphere", is
heavily skewed toward the traditional "the Entente powers were in the right and only did what needed to be done" interpretation....
Here is an example, from the BBC, an institution which I otherwise have a great deal of respect for:

Hey, if nine out of ten scholars agree......
That's all well and good. Perhaps I was too harsh as well. I just dislike this recent trend especially online that the established wisdom or the academic consensus must always be wrong. is it wrong occasionally? Sure. The last 50 years of Spartan studies have overthrown much that was once viewed as sacrosanct. I haven't seen that with the First World War and until I see something similar I view it as much too harsh to call the collective efforts propaganda.
 
The Germans will achieve a decisive success on the French in August or September, bringing the war to a relatively quick close. Terrence M. Holmes, writing in "Not the Schlieffen Plan 1914", explains the situation thusly:

If Moltke had followed Schlieffen’s real intentions for the counter-offensive conduct of a two-front war, the first great battle of 1914 would have been fought in Lorraine in the third week of hostilities, on terms much more favourable to Germany than they were at the battle of the Marne. We can reconstruct this alternative scenario because we know exactly what the French chief of staff Joseph Joffre intended to do if the Germans did not invade Belgium.​
French war planning was constrained by two political imperatives. In the first place, France was committed by agreement with her Russian ally to launch an ‘all-out and immediate’ attack against Germany as soon as possible after the outbreak of war. Moreover, the French government had resolved not to encroach on Belgian territory unless the Germans did so first. Joffre was therefore obliged to incorporate in his war plans a variant which allowed for a full-scale offensive avoiding Belgian territory altogether, and that would have come into effect in 1914 if the Germans had stayed on the defensive and not entered Belgium. For this eventuality Joffre decided that three of his five armies, comprising some 60 percent of his first-line troops, should invade Lorraine on 14 August, aiming initially to reach the line of the river Saar between Sarrebourg and Saarbrücken (Doughty 2010, 146-8, 155-8, 168). Ominously, that position was flanked at both ends by the German fortresses of Metz and Strasbourg.​
Schlieffen had long before outlined how the Germans should exploit a massive French incursion through ‘the relatively narrow space between Metz and Strasbourg’. The aim must not be to push the enemy back to his fortified border. Rather, he had to be engaged on three sides, ‘from Metz, from the Saar and from Strasbourg’, and brought to a standstill there, which would give the Germans an excellent chance of​
decisive victory by means of envelopment attacks out of Metz and Strasbourg. The ultimate aim of this ‘attack on the enemy’s flank and rear’ would be to surround the French invasion forces and ‘not just defeat them, but lay them low and as far as possible annihilate them’ (Boetticher 1933, 260).​
Joffre himself was acutely aware of the perils attending a French offensive in Lorraine. He said that the object would be to rupture the German front, but he conceded​
that:​
"In the course of this operation our forces would be liable to be taken in flank by attacks coming in all probability from both Metz and the region of Molsheim-Strasbourg. By penetrating like a wedge into the midst of the enemy’s lines we would be more or less inviting envelopment (Joffre 1932, 74-5)."
But a German defensive posture in 1914 would have compelled Joffre to embark on that hazardous course of action — that was precisely what he was committed to if the Germans refrained from attacking through Belgium and waited instead for the opportunity to counter-attack. In that event, the war would have started with a great battle of encirclement as soon as the French First, Second and Fourth Armies had completed their short advance into the danger zone between Metz and Strasbourg. Speaking in 1904 of the strategic importance of these fortresses, Schlieffen once again emphasized their role in counter-offensive operations: ‘I do not mean a Metz and Strasbourg that are to be besieged and defended, but rather a Metz and Strasbourg in which armies are assembled and through which they march in order to attack the enemy by surprise’ (Zuber 2004, 160).​
In short, 60% of the French Army in August of 1914 was walking into a trap, which they only escaped thanks to the French re-orienting themselves to respond to the German advance through Belgium and into France itself. It would've been a war winning blow from which the French never would've recovered from. An Eastern Front-first strategy will also allow the Germans to build up four armies-42 Divisions-in the East which will force the Russians onto a defensive stance and thus allow Austro-Hungary to avoid the Galicia disaster that so battered their Army IOTL 1914. Serbia thus is likely destroyed by 2nd Army in October, as OTL their severe munition shortages nearly forced the Serbs to surrender anyway.
 
But really, ever since 1919 the Germans get the Lions share of blame, when it really rests on the Russian desire to blank check the Serbians, that lead to the assassinations of the King and Queen of Serbia a decade before they set their sights on Franz Ferdinand
Russia should get more blame yes for setting up a situation where Serbia had to be protected. Russian diplomacy in the Balkans in the second half of the 19th century was indeed a travesty. Germany however in the specific context of the aftermath of the assassination had many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. German military planning however made this nearly impossible.
 
That's all well and good. Perhaps I was too harsh as well. I just dislike this recent trend especially online that the established wisdom or the academic consensus must always be wrong. is it wrong occasionally? Sure. The last 50 years of Spartan studies have overthrown much that was once viewed as sacrosanct. I haven't seen that with the First World War and until I see something similar I view it as much too harsh to call the collective efforts propaganda.
Fair enough. All of us can really only read what's out there (including original sources, if possible), weigh the evidence, and draw our own conclusions.
 
Russia should get more blame yes for setting up a situation where Serbia had to be protected. Russian diplomacy in the Balkans in the second half of the 19th century was indeed a travesty. Germany however in the specific context of the aftermath of the assassination had many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. German military planning however made this nearly impossible.
So did Russia. Nicky could've demobilized at several junctures, as long as it would take the bulk of the Russian army to reach the front. Of course, he had the French ambassador in his ear, goading him not to. As I stated in another thread, Germany was treaty-bound to come to A-H's defense in the event of an attack by Russia - full mobilization made that attack imminent. Russia had no such obligation toward Serbia.
 

marathag

Banned
Russia had no such obligation toward Serbia
That was one of the things that really surprised me in my research, Russia had no Treaties with Serbia, beyond those of Diplomatic Recognition and for Trade.
No secret ones, either.
It was all Tzar Nicky and Imperial Court, thinking being the Protector of all Slavs was a worthy goal, yet never put anything to paper.
 
That was one of the things that really surprised me in my research, Russia had no Treaties with Serbia, beyond those of Diplomatic Recognition and for Trade.
No secret ones, either.
It was all Tzar Nicky and Imperial Court, thinking being the Protector of all Slavs was a worthy goal, yet never put anything to paper.
Really? That sort of surprises me. I've read a lot of your posts on this general topic, and you're very knowledgeable about it. Would've assumed you had stumbled onto this tidbit earlier...
 

marathag

Banned
Really? That sort of surprises me. I've read a lot of your posts on this general topic, and you're very knowledgeable about it. Would've assumed you had stumbled onto this tidbit earlier...
Well to be truthful, earlier was way back in the late 1990s on Soc.History.What-if when I found there was more than just' Weak-arm Willy was a Warmonger' for the start of WWI
 
Well to be truthful, earlier was way back in the late 1990s on Soc.History.What-if when I found there was more than just' Weak-arm Willy was a Warmonger' for the start of WWI
Yeah. I think a lot of us, no matter what our country of origin, have been fed a continuous diet of half-truths and omissions on the origins of the Great War...
 
Top