Slitherine

quote:

So in the same way that the French people took defeat in 1870 as you would expect, so the Germans felt anger, betrayal etc etc

quote:

even though it was their country that did more than any other to start WWI, and it was Germany that declared war on France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

So in the same way that the French people took defeat in 1870 as you would expect, so the Germans felt anger, betrayal etc etc

"As you would expect" being the overthrow of the government, popular discontent and the emergence of revolutionary groups like the Paris Commune.

So basically the same as Germany in 1918 then, don't you agree?

quote:

even though it was their country that did more than any other to start WWI, and it was Germany that declared war on France.

That's a bold claim there, Fritz Fischer. Quite a popular one as well, but it's not quite true.

The Germans and Russians need to jointly bear the brunt of the blame. In essence, they turned what would have been a minor regional conflict (in a region where wars had been quite common) into a world war.

The Germans raised the stakes with the "blank cheque", but it was the Russians who mobilized first, forcing Germany to either declare war or throw away twenty odd years of military planning and preparation. Russian mobilization was the assurance of a world war in Europe.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII...

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

As for invading Germany, it seemed to me that all the war of 1870 was fought on French territory, and that the first battles happened after the German army crossed the Rhine into French territory...

Francois

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Actually the French invaded first, and took Saarbrucken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
It's hard to imagine for most, but at the time France was perceived almost as we now think of Germany in the early-to-mid 1900's - the bully of Europe who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The world had roughly the same expectations for Prussia in this war as it did for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII...

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

Warspite1

Orm was talking about the war in 1870

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

England declared war on Germany in WWII...

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Life is not always simple

Warspite1

Orm was talking about the war in 1870

Gee, thanks.

He could have talked about the 2nd Boer War and it hadn´t made a difference.

For you, in plain text, the underlying message of the post was:
Assigning aggressor roles in hindsight by looking at who declared war on whom (or who invaded whom) might lead to false conclusions throughout history.

Better?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
As you all love to tell me, this forum is so mature

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You´re right, it was too snarky a response. No offense.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Actually the French invaded first, and took Saarbrucken.

I would disagree with this. Actually, I think Sarrebruck proves the contrary.

War had been declared on the 19th of July, and by the beginning of August, both sides were quietly sitting on their side of the border. The Germans had an invasion plan, but the French generals, feeling (rightly) that they fought at a disadvantage, were planning for a defensive war. As public opinon seemed worried by the lack of action, Napoleon ordered an offensive, which the generals resisted.

Sarrebruck was the result : the French sent a few battalions, the Prussians retreated in order, casualties were minimal, but both propaganda machines played it to the hilt: great victory for the French, invasion stopped cold for the Prussians. But the "battle" was, at best, an inconclusive skirmish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
It's hard to imagine for most, but at the time France was perceived almost as we now think of Germany in the early-to-mid 1900's - the bully of Europe who did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. The world had roughly the same expectations for Prussia in this war as it did for Japan in the Russo-Japanese War.

In 1870, the last time the French army had been engaged was in Mexico, and it hadn't been a success.

In Europe, France was perceived as weak. Prussia, on the other hand, had defeated Autria in Sadowa a few years before, and no one had doubts about their military prowess (the only question in 1870, was whether the southern german states would follow Prussia, and this was the purpose of the Ems dispatch).

Francois

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
On what planet is a French invasion NOT a French invasion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
These guys were NOT cowering in fear of Prussia. They were insulted and they were HAPPY to declare war, and fully expected that France would win again, as always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
And the idea that France planned a "defensive campaign" is laughable. The French military was fully versed in the Napoleonic belief in the offensive, and it was embedded in their military ethos all the way through the First World War when it finally bled out in the trenches.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Wow. Nice sarcasm. I made a mistake in terms in terms of what I thought you meant - that was all. The smiley I thought showed my intention here.

As you all love to tell me, this forum is so mature, so friendly. Yes, as evidenced by this narky response LoBaron - real friendly, just like Symon's post earlier. So thanks for that .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
On what planet is a French invasion NOT a French invasion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

Here's a little something that might interest you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z26bjxs

The First World War became the First World War (and not the Third Balkans War) when the Russians decided to order mobilization. After that point, the clock starts counting down the hours Germany has to ensure it's security and what would otherwise have been a limited regional conflict in the Balkans turns into a European-wide bloodbath as Russian mobilization sets off the various triggers to bring the other great powers into the war.

The "blank cheque" was not an assurance of war, as Russian military involvement was by no means a certainty. Russia had, after all, made a point of not intervening militarily in the past two wars in the Balkans, both of which threatened Russian interests.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

France declared war on Germany over the wording of a telegram...and was the first to send soldiers across the border into the other nation. The Prussians goaded you, and you declared war over a triviality. And then invaded Germany. First.

quote:

If Mexico sends "a few battalions" into the US and kills a few dozen US troops, I don't think the headlines (or the politicians and the public) will use the words, "reconnaissance in force".

quote:

If Mexico sends "a few battalions" into the US and kills a few dozen US troops, I don't think the headlines (or the politicians and the public) will use the words, "reconnaissance in force".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just a general remark, as this has happened a lot in this thread already. An attempt to explain, condemn, or justify, historical events with todays western world moral and logic standards will usually end up in failure to understand.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

Here's a little something that might interest you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z26bjxs

The First World War became the First World War (and not the Third Balkans War) when the Russians decided to order mobilization. After that point, the clock starts counting down the hours Germany has to ensure it's security and what would otherwise have been a limited regional conflict in the Balkans turns into a European-wide bloodbath as Russian mobilization sets off the various triggers to bring the other great powers into the war.

The "blank cheque" was not an assurance of war, as Russian military involvement was by no means a certainty. Russia had, after all, made a point of not intervening militarily in the past two wars in the Balkans, both of which threatened Russian interests.

warspite1

No blank cheque = no war (Balkan or otherwise) and so Russia's actions become irrelevant.

quote:

Germany wanted to support her ailing ally, that's perfectly understandable. However, when Austria-Hungary's ultimatum (that was designed to be rejected and could only have been sent with the blank cheque in her pocket) was accepted on all bar one point why, if Germany really did not want general war, did she not simply order AH to accept, what was, Serbia's abject humiliation. Germany could and should of course have limited the cheque in the first place, but having failed to do so she could, even then, have told AH that "we do not want this getting out of hand, failure to accept means you are on your own". Acceptance would more than have satisfied AH honour and revenged the death of their heir to the throne.

quote:

And what of Austria-Hungary's actions? Knowing that proceeding to war with Serbia (rather than just simply accepting her humiliation) would lead to a Europe wide conflagration, her behaviour was rather cavalier no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the second point, yes, in my opinion very true. Life is not always simple, and many nations played their part, but the "assurance" of war was the blank cheque. The blank cheque was given to suit the wider German purpose - and that was war. Maybe not the Kaiser, who blew hot and cold, but certainly Moltke.

Here's a little something that might interest you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z26bjxs

The First World War became the First World War (and not the Third Balkans War) when the Russians decided to order mobilization. After that point, the clock starts counting down the hours Germany has to ensure it's security and what would otherwise have been a limited regional conflict in the Balkans turns into a European-wide bloodbath as Russian mobilization sets off the various triggers to bring the other great powers into the war.

The "blank cheque" was not an assurance of war, as Russian military involvement was by no means a certainty. Russia had, after all, made a point of not intervening militarily in the past two wars in the Balkans, both of which threatened Russian interests.

warspite1

No blank cheque = no war (Balkan or otherwise) and so Russia's actions become irrelevant.

It's a nice notion, but wrong. The tensions in the Balkans were simply too high for there not to be another war. If Austria-Hungary had simply did nothing, you'd have had another war in the Balkans regardless, probably between Greece and the Ottoman Empire.

Every nation in Europe was aware that another war in the Balkans was on the horrizon. The "where" and "who" questions weren't really clear, but there was common agreement that another war was brewing.

quote:

Germany wanted to support her ailing ally, that's perfectly understandable. However, when Austria-Hungary's ultimatum (that was designed to be rejected and could only have been sent with the blank cheque in her pocket) was accepted on all bar one point why, if Germany really did not want general war, did she not simply order AH to accept, what was, Serbia's abject humiliation. Germany could and should of course have limited the cheque in the first place, but having failed to do so she could, even then, have told AH that "we do not want this getting out of hand, failure to accept means you are on your own". Acceptance would more than have satisfied AH honour and revenged the death of their heir to the throne.

The "blank cheque" is one of those cases in history where a diplomatic sledgehammer is used to perform keyhole surgery. To be fair to the Germans, their alliance with A-H was quite critical to their defence, and unconditional support in what would have otherwise been a regional conflict was a small price to pay for the benefits brought by an A-H alliance.

As for the ultimatum, the Serbs single rejection was to refuse to arrest all accessories to the assassination and let A-H delegates take part in the investigation. Rather insignificant, considering the Serbs were fine with A-H providing a list of military and civil administration members to fire.

quote:

And what of Austria-Hungary's actions? Knowing that proceeding to war with Serbia (rather than just simply accepting her humiliation) would lead to a Europe wide conflagration, her behaviour was rather cavalier no?

Again, Russian involvement was by no means assured, and the Austro-Hungarian's (at least at the high levels of government) were out for blood. Considering the growing nationalist sentimens within A-H

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a general remark, as this has happened a lot in this thread already. An attempt to explain, condemn, or justify, historical events with todays western world moral and logic standards will usually end up in failure to understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is?

And just suppose that the flow of deadly pathogens did not go from the old world to the new but the reverse happened-wiping out 80% of the population of Europe before the first Meso-American ever set foot ashore in France. Would we still be practicing human sacrifice today?

I raise the question only because my idiot neighbor left his three barking pugs out doors all last night and I did not get a wink of sleep. Right now I have a pretty good idea about who's heart I want to cut out and eat first...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
You can certainly make the case that 70 years of German militarism were entirely the result of decisions made in France in 1870.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
You can certainly make the case that 70 years of German militarism were entirely the result of decisions made in France in 1870.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
You can certainly make the case that 70 years of German militarism were entirely the result of decisions made in France in 1870.

Certainly, in the same way as you can make a case for any local event in history to be exclusively causally related to subsequent a local condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
You can certainly make the case that 70 years of German militarism were entirely the result of decisions made in France in 1870.

Certainly, in the same way as you can make a case for any local event in history to be exclusively causally related to subsequent a local condition.

And that's what makes counterfactuals so interesting. I kind of like this one because it's never been given serious consideration, to my knowledge. But everything that made Germany so dangerous in the years to come flowed out from the results of this war. And this wasn't a war with the inevitability of WW1 with all it's tangled alliances. France had already achieved a diplomatic victory in 1870 by getting the Prussians to back down on the Hohenzollern candidacy for the Spanish throne, but that wasn't good enough. They decided to "spike the ball" and demanded that no Hohenzollern would ever seek the throne of Spain. Wilhelm I refused to respond to the insult, and France declared war because they didn't like the wording of a telegram.

Good Lord. One of the most unnecessary wars ever, and it directly led to WW1 (and by implication, all the rest). I guess the only argument against an alternate outcome is that France had been the bully of Europe since the days of Charlemagne, so it was perhaps too much to expect that the leopard would change it's spots overnight.