Should Britain have gone to war in 1914?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated the Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, leading to the July Crisis. In response, on 23 July Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia's reply failed to satisfy the Austrians, and the two moved to a war footing.

A network of interlocking alliances enlarged the crisis from a bilateral issue in the Balkans to one involving most of Europe. By July 1914, the great powers of Europe were divided into two coalitions: the Triple Entente—consisting of France, Russia, and Britain—and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (the Triple Alliance was primarily defensive in nature, allowing Italy to stay out of the war in 1914). Russia felt it necessary to back Serbia and, after Austria-Hungary shelled the Serbian capital of Belgrade on the 28th, approved partial mobilisation. Full Russian mobilisation was announced on the evening of 30 July; on the 31st, Austria-Hungary and Germany did the same, while Germany demanded Russia demobilise within twelve hours. When Russia failed to comply, Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August in support of Austria-Hungary, with Austria-Hungary following suit on the 6th; France ordered full mobilisation in support of Russia on 2 August.

So, the first belligerent act was by Serbia, and the first Major Power to trip the alliance dominoes was Russia. Yet the Central Powers get the blame for some reason.

[Curtis Lemay]

I still say the real reason for WWI was that it had been a century since the last big one. No one was left alive who remembered what it was like. In their minds war was glory and pageantry. And not just the soldiers, generals, politicians, and royalty - but the common people felt that way. When war was announced, it was met with giddy jubilation in the streets. Soldiers marching to the battlefields were just as giddy, often adorned with flowers. Who wouldn't want a war??

Contrast this with Munich. Now a whole generation had seen the monkey show and would do almost anything to avoid it. Even appeasement.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


...

So, the first belligerent act was by Serbia, and the first Major Power to trip the alliance dominoes was Russia. Yet the Central Powers get the blame for some reason.

theres blame enough to go around, but only Germany had an ideology that justified the war that the way to advance humanity (well the white European bit) was to defeat the decadent British and French Empires, so yes, Germany bears prime responsibility for the wider war and Austria-Hungary was pretty keen to have a war with Serbia (& not too worried at the wider implications)

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still say the real reason for WWI was that it had been a century since the last big one. No one was left alive who remembered what it was like. In their minds war was glory and pageantry. And not just the soldiers, generals, politicians, and royalty - but the common people felt that way. When war was announced, it was met with giddy jubilation in the streets. Soldiers marching to the battlefields were just as giddy, often adorned with flowers. Who wouldn't want a war??

Contrast this with Munich. Now a whole generation had seen the monkey show and would do almost anything to avoid it. Even appeasement.

but thats not true. Everyone in the various militaries were aware of what rifles meant on the battlefield, and that before the wider adoption of the machine gun. Battles like Gravelotte were well known and studied for what it meant when just one side had a rifle accurate at around 1km. The Russo-Japanese war made it clear what the cost was going to be of clearing even quick trench lines.

most of the powers that were at the centre of the Great War had fought a major conflict (even if in a colonial setting) in the last 20 years.

Now was the whole thing bedecked with flags and patriotism - of course, was the practical impact on the battlefield a surprise - no.

Its like the myth the Germans didn't know how harsh a Russian winter would be in 1941 - when the majority of their officer corps had fought in Russia from 1915-19 and were well aware of what would happen.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I still say the real reason for WWI was that it had been a century since the last big one. No one was left alive who remembered what it was like. In their minds war was glory and pageantry. And not just the soldiers, generals, politicians, and royalty - but the common people felt that way. When war was announced, it was met with giddy jubilation in the streets. Soldiers marching to the battlefields were just as giddy, often adorned with flowers. Who wouldn't want a war??

Contrast this with Munich. Now a whole generation had seen the monkey show and would do almost anything to avoid it. Even appeasement.

'Oh what a lovely war!'
I agree that the public didn't know about the horrors of war in 1914 (and did in 1939). There were a few professionals (like Edward Grey and Kitchener) who did understand what a general European war would be like. Unfortunately they were not in position to overrule the irrational / incompetent people (such as Czar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm and Conrad).

Some leaders (like the French) understood the cost of war, but felt they genuinely had no choice but to fight in 1914.
The Schlieffen plan was designed to avoid a long war, at the risk of losing East Prussia.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rico21

ORIGINAL: warspite1

with four excellent speakers.

Yaaah, the new historians are excellent speakers.[:D][:D][:D]

warspite1

[8|]

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zovs

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated the Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, leading to the July Crisis. In response, on 23 July Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia's reply failed to satisfy the Austrians, and the two moved to a war footing.

A network of interlocking alliances enlarged the crisis from a bilateral issue in the Balkans to one involving most of Europe. By July 1914, the great powers of Europe were divided into two coalitions: the Triple Entente—consisting of France, Russia, and Britain—and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (the Triple Alliance was primarily defensive in nature, allowing Italy to stay out of the war in 1914). Russia felt it necessary to back Serbia and, after Austria-Hungary shelled the Serbian capital of Belgrade on the 28th, approved partial mobilisation. Full Russian mobilisation was announced on the evening of 30 July; on the 31st, Austria-Hungary and Germany did the same, while Germany demanded Russia demobilise within twelve hours. When Russia failed to comply, Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August in support of Austria-Hungary, with Austria-Hungary following suit on the 6th; France ordered full mobilisation in support of Russia on 2 August.

So, the first belligerent act was by Serbia, and the first Major Power to trip the alliance dominoes was Russia. Yet the Central Powers get the blame for some reason.

Let me get this right.... the act of a single man was the fault of an entire Country.... Then the demand by Austria to invade Serbia with its army was a viable action that Serbia should have allowed?

[warspite1]

The debate is about whether Britain should have gone to war in 1914 - not who was responsible for WWI (although of course that aspect may be pertinent to the subject of the debate).

[Twotribes]

And I answered that YES Britain should have gone to war Germany was an aggressor State and invaded a Country Britain was pledged to protect.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And I answered that YES Britain should have gone to war Germany was an aggressor State and invaded a Country Britain was pledged to protect.

And therein lies the madness of the entire circus of lunatics. Let's kill off an entire generation because of a signature on a piece of paper. Oh but honor, what about honor? Ah yes, it's buried six feet under the ground in millions of graves. Except for the ones who signed the paper. They're drinking wine and congratulating themselves on winning the war. And that same lunacy continues today. [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

......and invaded a Country Britain was pledged to protect.

warspite1

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the agreement signed by the major powers and what they were and were not obliged to do re Belgium. Where does it state the UK pledged to protect Belgium?

[RangerJoe]

If people can't trust you to live up to your word, then what good is it?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

......and invaded a Country Britain was pledged to protect.

warspite1

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the agreement signed by the major powers and what they were and were not obliged to do re Belgium. Where does it state the UK pledged to protect Belgium?

this one is relatively clear. GB, France and Germany all agreed to Belgian neutrality in 1839.

This was important in the Franco-Prussian war (the French troops had the bad habit of nipping over the border for a cheap smoke and beer and NIII was really worried the Prussians would take the easy route into NE France as a result) but it was also something that compensated the Belgians (part of Limburg was returned to the Netherlands and it was both catholic and Vlaams speaking). So crudely it was a treaty that mattered, if GB ignored it then it undermined a lot of other treaties and agreements

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

......and invaded a Country Britain was pledged to protect.

warspite1

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the agreement signed by the major powers and what they were and were not obliged to do re Belgium. Where does it state the UK pledged to protect Belgium?

this one is relatively clear. GB, France and Germany all agreed to Belgian neutrality in 1839.

This was important in the Franco-Prussian war (the French troops had the bad habit of nipping over the border for a cheap smoke and beer and NIII was really worried the Prussians would take the easy route into NE France as a result) but it was also something that compensated the Belgians (part of Limburg was returned to the Netherlands and it was both catholic and Vlaams speaking). So crudely it was a treaty that mattered, if GB ignored it then it undermined a lot of other treaties and agreements

It was Prussia in 1839 - 'Germany' did not exist until 1871. Napoleon III did not come to power until after 1848.

[RangerJoe]

That is true but Germany inherited it from Prussia.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is true but Germany inherited it from Prussia.

Wonder if Germany paid estate tax?

[Twotribes]

I find it hard to believe anyone today would actually fault a western Country for opposing Germany Austria in WW1. Add that to the claim that Chamberlain was right about appeasement and we have a sorry state of affairs going on.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: loki100

theres blame enough to go around, but only Germany had an ideology that justified the war that the way to advance humanity (well the white European bit) was to defeat the decadent British and French Empires, so yes, Germany bears prime responsibility for the wider war and Austria-Hungary was pretty keen to have a war with Serbia (& not too worried at the wider implications)

Who cares what anyone's ideology was. What matters is who did what first. And the Serbs took the first act of belligerence and the Russians knocked over the first domino.

but thats not true. Everyone in the various militaries were aware of what rifles meant on the battlefield, and that before the wider adoption of the machine gun. Battles like Gravelotte were well known and studied for what it meant when just one side had a rifle accurate at around 1km. The Russo-Japanese war made it clear what the cost was going to be of clearing even quick trench lines.

most of the powers that were at the centre of the Great War had fought a major conflict (even if in a colonial setting) in the last 20 years.

Now was the whole thing bedecked with flags and patriotism - of course, was the practical impact on the battlefield a surprise - no.

Maybe there were some wonks in a basement somewhere that had some inkling of what was coming (and I seriously doubt even that). For sure, those at the top and the general public had no clue. France was under the illusion that offense was king - with disastrous consequences. Once in progress, the von Schlieffen plan had to keep shortening the attack frontages to continue to advance, due to the need for higher and higher odds. It eventually shortened things up so much it had to skip Paris. Clearly, the top generals hadn't planned on what reality revealed.

Again, the war was greeted with jubilation. Contrast that to Munich.

[loki100]

I'm sorry but that is too simplistic. Of course the various militaries studied every war and tried to interpret what it meant - and had no illusions as to what the rifle (never mind the machine gun) was going to do on the battlefield.

Serious suggestion, read Gat's second book in his History of Military Thought.

They knew where technology was taking warfare and then came up with various fantasies (such as the French primacy of morale) to set it to one side.

And if you have a state, permeated from top to bottom by an ideology, of course that affects their decision making?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the agreement signed by the major powers and what they were and were not obliged to do re Belgium. Where does it state the UK pledged to protect Belgium?

this one is relatively clear. GB, France and Germany all agreed to Belgian neutrality in 1839.

This was important in the Franco-Prussian war (the French troops had the bad habit of nipping over the border for a cheap smoke and beer and NIII was really worried the Prussians would take the easy route into NE France as a result) but it was also something that compensated the Belgians (part of Limburg was returned to the Netherlands and it was both catholic and Vlaams speaking). So crudely it was a treaty that mattered, if GB ignored it then it undermined a lot of other treaties and agreements

It was Prussia in 1839 - 'Germany' did not exist until 1871. Napoleon III did not come to power until after 1848.

yep, you are half right, it was indeed Prussia in 1839. but Germany post-1871 deliberately took on all the debts and treaties of the earlier state (in the same way that Russia in 1991 took on the liabilities of the USSR)

second bit, sorry reference was to the behaviour of French troops during the Franco-Prussian war, and yep NIII really was in charge then [;)]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: loki100

theres blame enough to go around, but only Germany had an ideology that justified the war that the way to advance humanity (well the white European bit) was to defeat the decadent British and French Empires, so yes, Germany bears prime responsibility for the wider war and Austria-Hungary was pretty keen to have a war with Serbia (& not too worried at the wider implications)

Who cares what anyone's ideology was. What matters is who did what first. And the Serbs took the first act of belligerence and the Russians knocked over the first domino.

but thats not true. Everyone in the various militaries were aware of what rifles meant on the battlefield, and that before the wider adoption of the machine gun. Battles like Gravelotte were well known and studied for what it meant when just one side had a rifle accurate at around 1km. The Russo-Japanese war made it clear what the cost was going to be of clearing even quick trench lines.

most of the powers that were at the centre of the Great War had fought a major conflict (even if in a colonial setting) in the last 20 years.

Now was the whole thing bedecked with flags and patriotism - of course, was the practical impact on the battlefield a surprise - no.

Maybe there were some wonks in a basement somewhere that had some inkling of what was coming (and I seriously doubt even that). For sure, those at the top and the general public had no clue. France was under the illusion that offense was king - with disastrous consequences. Once in progress, the von Schlieffen plan had to keep shortening the attack frontages to continue to advance, due to the need for higher and higher odds. It eventually shortened things up so much it had to skip Paris. Clearly, the top generals hadn't planned on what reality revealed.

Again, the war was greeted with jubilation. Contrast that to Munich.

I would not call Lord Kitchener 'a wonk in a basement'. [:)]
There were other military men who understood that a general war would be long and bloody. Such as French general Michel, whose plan called for a defensive posture. Unfortunately for France the war didn't start in 1911.

More people would have understood how much the nature of war had changed if the Russo-Japanese war had been closer to Europe. When one European observer (future general Ian Hamilton) wrote that 'the only thing cavalry could do in the face of the enemy was cook rice for the infantry (The Guns of August), 'The War Office wondered if his brain was affected'. German Max Hoffman made a similar observation that Moltke had a problem with. The increase in firepower from artillery and machine guns, as well as the density of forces, wasn't widely appreciated.