Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Having read the "official papers", I came to my own conclusion that the blame for all out war lies squarely with Britain.

We did nothing to dissuade France or Russia from aggressive posturing (and eventual mobilisation), while simultaneously faffing with the Germans, giving an impression that we would choose not to become involved.

Earlier our diplomacy in the dispute in the Balkans was feeble in the extreme.

An interesting series of books:

tSO uncovered editions, published from the official archive of the Stationary Office London.

The title of interest -

"War 1914 : Punishing the Serbs"; The Stationary Office, London. 1999 (ISBN 0-11-702410-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
Reinsurance Treaty
The Reinsurance Treaty of June 18, 1887 was an attempt by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to continue to ally with Russia after the League of the Three Emperors had broken down in the aftermath of the 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War.

Facing the competition between Russia and Austria–Hungary on the Balkans, Bismarck felt that this agreement was essential to prevent a Russian convergence toward France and to continue the diplomatic isolation of the French so ensuring German security against a threatening two-front war. He thereby hazarded the expansion of the Russian sphere of influence toward the Mediterranean and diplomatic tensions with Vienna.

The secret treaty signed by Bismarck and the Russian Foreign Minister Nikolay Girs was split in two parts:

Germany and Russia both agreed to observe neutrality should the other be involved in a war with a third country. Neutrality would not apply should Germany attack France or Russia attack Austria-Hungary.
In the most secret completion protocol Germany declared herself neutral in the event of a Russian intervention in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

As part of Bismarck's system of "periphery diversion" the treaty was highly dependent on his personal reputation. After the dismissal of Bismarck, his successor Leo von Caprivi felt unable to obtain success in keeping this policy, while the German Foreign Office under Friedrich von Holstein had already prepared a renunciation toward the Dual Alliance with Austria–Hungary.

When in 1890 Russia asked for a renewal of the treaty, Germany refused persistently. Kaiser Wilhelm II believed his own personal relationship with Tsar Alexander III would be sufficient to ensure further genial diplomatic ties and felt that maintaining a close bond with Russia would act to the detriment of his aims to attract Britain into the German sphere. Like the ongoing Austro-Russian conflict, the Anglo-Russian relations too were strained at this point due to the gaining influence of Russia in the Balkans and their aims to open up the Straits of the Dardanelles which would threaten British colonial interests in the Middle East. However, having become alarmed at its growing isolation, Saint Petersburg, as Bismarck had feared, entered into the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1892 thus bringing to an end the French isolation. According to professor Bury, the dismissal of chancellor Bismarck, the erratic temper of emperor William II, and the uncertain policy of the men who succeeded Bismarck (partly out of consideration for England they failed to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia but did renew the Triple Alliance), were joint causes of the inauguration of a period of fundamental change.[1]

In 1896 the treaty was exposed by a German newspaper, the Hamburger Nachrichten, which caused an outcry in Germany and Austria-Hungary.

The failure of this treaty is seen as one of the factors contributing to World War I, due to Germany's increasing sense of diplomatic isolation.

When the war ended in 1918 [...] The austerity measures global investment banks forced on the US, England, France and other European countries led to a massive bankruptcies and unemployment and the virtual collapse of foreign trade. Except in Germany.

The global banking elite used the wealth generated from debt repayment to finance rapid German re-industrialization and militarization, along with the Nazi movement created by Hitler

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Alpha, is this Quigley guy for real?

When the war ended in 1918 [...] The austerity measures global investment banks forced on the US, England, France and other European countries led to a massive bankruptcies and unemployment and the virtual collapse of foreign trade. Except in Germany.

LOL

The 20s are synonymous of BOOM, growth! It's Ford's "you can have any colour as long as it's black" Golden Era [:D]

Germany was the exception then LOL Quigley also missed the German massive hyperinflation in the early 20s!

He got all wrong [:D]

The global banking elite used the wealth generated from debt repayment to finance rapid German re-industrialization and militarization, along with the Nazi movement created by Hitler

Quigley is here out of his depth. He is confusing and mixing different events. It looks like both rearming Germany AND helping Hitler happened at the same time then... This is totally hilarious and false though [:D] Hitler's career started in the early 20s (the Putsch in 1923). He managed to grab power in 1933. And re-armament only started in 1935 IIRC! Before that date the different German governments (Republic of Weimar) were respecting the Treaty of Versailles (ergo NO rearmament).

But according to Quigley Germany was re-arming herself since the early, middle 20s!

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
There are no precise time scales in the article.

And let people discuss about WWI

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

It would be interesting (but mostly a matter of opinion) to make a list of which countries went to war for principles, and which went to war for gain. There would be greed-inspired nations on both sides, especially Italy and Japan on the side of the Allies. But I confess I'm not sure in which column to place the Ottoman Empire. Did they want simply to push the Russians back after the encroachments in central Asia, or did the Central Powers promise them territory in the Balkans?

The one person who really started the war was Wilhelm II.By letting the three power accord between Russia,Austria and Germany expire.By destroying all of Bismark's hard work, the war is really in his lap.

ORIGINAL: chemkid

thank you Curtis Lemay!

+1

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Germany, France and Russia all wanted war in 1914, but the Germans were definitely the aggressive power. Austria-Hungary was merely a tool for Germany.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Given its the 100th anniversary of start of the Great War, I thought it would be interesting to hear peoples views on this.

There has been a lot of books and programs over the recent past that have challenged the "Germany did it" version of events. Have people been swayed by these arguments? Have they always held a different view anyway? or have they read the new ideas and rejected them?

Its a fascinating subject - anyone interested in such a debate?