Post by steffen on Jul 4, 2018 7:27:32 GMT
as suggested - if you are uncertain what i mean - ask me. I have no troubles with that, because english isn´t my mother language.
I think i made clear what i meant - if austria think hard about accepting the offer to attack germany they end in a VERY bad situation.
If they make peace with security to the german borders they would actually HELP the germans. Austria was a net drain - esp. in logistics and military aid.
i once read a book about the logistics (Eisenbahner des 1. Weltkrieges or similar), that was an eyeopener.. in a library. Without the austrians to feed and supply the germans gain a lot of their rolling stock back - the numbers aren´t set in stone, my feeling about that (in the book) was around 20-25% of the whole german rolling stock. That is important because germany run on rails and the break down of the civil supply system - that caused finally the revolution in russia was also a major point in germany. All caused by the galizia desaster of Conrad von H., who won the war for the entente by this.
More as 60% of the rolling stock got lost, so austria needed from 1915 massive german support in this, causing the thin stretched german eisenbahner system to overdue -> with the negative consequences of wear and tear later on.
About serbia - we completly disagree.
Serbia was the most brutal, criminal and problematic state in europe in 1914. They slaughtered nonserbians in their new conquered areas in "nazi-similar" methods, they financed the anti-austrian propaganda, had financed MANY groups who planned to destabilize austria-hungaria. The group who killed the heir of the throne was only one of them. No, a failed state that only acted that way because they had a blanc check by russia, who tried to dissolve austria-hungaria to get their grip on all "serbians".
About poland - sorry, there existed allready a kindom of poland, basically in the borders of russian-poland.
Here very detailed (but in german) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regentschaftsk%C3%B6nigreich_Polen
Oberost dreamed about an enlarged german empire - the bad influence of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, but the politicans had no interest in this.
I bet the germans would betray this kingdom of poland, if it suits em, but with a plot in 1917 this country "existed" and was also part of the interest of austria-hungaria.
Yes, the website is nice - it gives interesting informations who often are collected in "some peace negotiations were tried". But i think it make clear that the idea wasn´t thought through.
The problem for the Entente - generally - was that their war goal was the dismantling of germany (france), enlarging their empire (russia), removing the stronger economic enemy (UK).
It was true a fight for survival for the germans - they had incredible luck that
a.) red russia was seen as a problem
b.) the fear that germany turn red was to big
c.) generally the war was so bloody that no soldier wanted to fight anymore.
Otherwise the french and russians had teared appart germany, the french had propably enslaved or expulsed the ruhr-germans, maybe more.
Ironically the most deadly enemy of germany (who caused the most crimes against em), UK was the one who wanted to use the germans for their interests. From a hindsightpoint a big failure.
The german army - and the politicans - wanted to remove the thread against germany. That is not hegemonial interests, otherwise the germans had crashed the french in 1905. It is just (british) propaganda lies who painted the germans as agressors.
They were no saints, never! But they were quite peaceful, they had no interest in the war. But the moment the war was no longer avoidable, they pushed for the "best method" to win it. This is not world domination, as the british tried in the 19th century.
The germans also never did something like Kopenhagen a fleet (or in Dakar).-.. they weren´t as ruthless and brutal. But with the nazis as follow up it is easier to paint the germans of ww1 as "Nazis with different moustache".
The same with the september-program. That is as realistic and possible as the ww2-Kaufmann-plan, but as "evidence for german evilness" it is suitable for many. Even if bullshit.
Don´t get me wrong, the germans wouldn´t be nice guys - they would use their economic power to "rule", but with the own population absolutly not interested in a war (as was seen in ww2) they could not have done. Yes, the british empire would fail earlier, because the opposition with germany is something different to OTL, but you avoid the nazis and propably in the civil war in russia the germans supply the whites enough to bring the reds down.
About russia - we disagree - because russia was ruined in econimic terms from 1915 on. They delayed the inevitable, but if you have nothing to eat (because you cannot move the stuff) you get sometimes the people starting troubles.
OTL in 1917 the russians ONLY wanted peace. If the white government gives that, they could survive (or not), but anything else mean they will fail.
The germans in early 17 would be very leninent in peace conditions, as often ignored (propably because of the nazis and Barbarossa), germany and russia were on very good terms before ww1. Even OTL they basically gave good conditions (hard? yes... but compared to OTL very mild and - very important - no russian areas would be demanded) and only with the communists playing on time the germans countered that. (Forget some individuals dreaming about a greater reich, such people existed, just like some massacres in poland, some protonazis killed jews in polish villiages, but that is nothing compared to 100.000 or more dead jews in the retreat of 1915 caused by the russian army - they blamed the jews for beeing german spies)
So, the imperial germans would be hard, esp. if you try to blow things up, but if you get a treaty and keep peaceful you don´t suffer.
Finnland stay russian, only half of the baltics get lost, the ukraine could propably kept (with some border corrections)..
But for the entente this mean the germans will come early... and that mean the war ends in late 1917.
Steffen
No! That is the excuse of the militarists. As the link you posted before pointed out WWI made clear the basic difference in viewpoint that made a negotiated peace was that Germany wanted undisputed military dominance of Europe and the French and British especially opposed that as it would be fatal to their independence. Similarly it pointed out that the PG in Russia refused to make peace with Germany because they knew the Germans wanted to separate them from the western allies and expected that after they were defeated would turn on Russia. The threat against Germany as it was perceived was the simple existence of nations capable of being independent of Germany domination. That wasn't 'British lies' as you put it but simple reality. The war could only end with a clear German military domination of Europe or of a Germany with a reduced military capacity so other powers have a chance to live in peace. Unfortunately because the latter wasn't done completely and because Russia ended up as a crippled pariah this meant that WWII was always a possibility.
You can see that as well in its approach to Belgium, planning on preventing it regaining any real independence even after the planned German victory that would provide total security by breaking every other power in Europe to subordinate nature.
The basic problem was that, possibly in part because of misreading Bismarck's success the German leadership too the view that war was the answer to any perceived problem. That's why they built up the alliance that eventually defeated them. Because they were unwilling to accept that other powers have valid interests.
As long as you assume that everybody who rejects such domination were some evil fanatics who wished to destroy Germany you will never understand what was actually going on.
Steve
Steve
we agree to disagree.
What you call "german militarists" was common sense in any army, they planned for something to be prepared. In opposition the germans planned to little - they had shelved their ideas about russia, so they were basically forced to strike against france and belgium.
Think about the post-ww1-plans of the USA, Warplan Red and co., it is the job of the military to plan wars.
You just think to much from the "british empire rule the waves"-point of view.
From that it is okay to crush any foreign country, either if it could be a military threat or an economical one.
France - fueled by the hate against the boche not only wanted to get back "their" alsac - they lost by their stupid war of agression in 1871, but they wanted to dismantle germany. Look at the french plans. They wanted to move the border to the river rhine AND to dismantle germany.
The germans in opposition had everything they wanted and they prooved for 43 years that they did not want more. These are facts written in history.
Naturally german generals and officers dreamed about enlarging their countries. Such shitheads existed there and in other countries. That is nothing unusual.
The difference is - nobody claim that the plan based on the US american Kaufmann in 1942 was a serious idea, but if some german officers have such moron ideas it is an evidence? Nah.
The germans just wanted to remove any threat to german existence. You also seem to ignore the fact that is was british arrogance that started only the german move to build a fleet. Or do you forget the fact that the right of (german) neutral ships was violated in the boers war? That the whole thing was not only done for the interest of some british industrial barones, but also to punish the german money investet in the independent boers-state? No? Inform yourself about that.
Again - that make the germans NOT to saints, such thing doesn´t existed then or today, but it is clear that it was germany who fought for survival in worldwar 1.
The group around Hindenburg and Ludendorf was dangerous, their "Ober-Ost" was a problem. If you read what they wished to do it IS a problem and - it could be seen as a layout for things Hitler later did (but 100x times worse). But that wasn´t a governments idea, the chance that the "silent dicatorship" would have taken power postwar is pure ASB. THey obey the Kaiser/the government.
And here nobody claimed anything exceptional.
Yes, the germans demanded to include the belgians in their "zone of economic and political interests", rightfully fearing that the open-door-policy of pre-war would have ended. Overall the germans struggled about "what they should demand after they won", the main interest was - through all parties - to be save from hostile forces surrounding them.
Yes, germany wanted to remove russia from the "evil french-british-alliance" as they saw it. What is wrong with that from a german POV?
Again - germany did not attack anybody for 43 years, even if they easily could have do it. No agressive moves. In oppostion they tried to balance things. Even the Kaiser had no interest in wars.
He and many germans thought that serbia needs to be punished (hell - if i look into the facts i think the best would have been if austria-hungaria had crushed serbia, remove the military, reduce the size of serbia (give parts to neighbours), cut of any connections of serbia to russia and france (make a puppet out of it) and let em rethink things for 25 years. They had the worst nationalism in times of nationalism, they commited incredible crimes (nobody cares about today) in their time in the areas they conquered - all with the fact that they needed trade with austria-hungaria.
in july 1914 no war has to come - if the serbians don´t support terrorism, serbia 1914 was a mixture of syria and iran of 2018 (terrorism sponsoring wise) or if france do NOT give a blanco check to russia.
What happens without these?
Well serbia get punished, either they have to accept everything the austrians demand or they face a war with austria-hungaria that kills their "great-serbian"-idea. Both is good for the stability of europe. Also for greece, the same idiots dreaming about greater-greece.
About the thing how germany saw war and such things - you lack ANY knowledge about that, otherwise you would not have written that. Sorry, that is absolute nonsense.
The germans never had the interest in going for war - maybe the people (even if modern research informations give a complete different picture about that - no "Kriegsbegeisterung" but fear for war in great parts of ALL european societies) in parts, but the leadership had quite a good idea about the consequences of such war. Not in the methods and casulties, but the consequences and economic problems.
the british on the other hand acted the way they allways did in their "empire-time". They tried to remove economical threats by military methods.
German merchants were better as their own? the german yards could build "better" ships? Lets remove them, so we do not need to change a thing
Germans lead in the future industries? We fall behind each day? Fine, lets ruin them, take em and let em pay for using the methods THEY developted
But in the same time the failure of the empire was, they wanted the germans to control a bit their "allies" france and esp. russia. It was basically plain fear that binded the british at the french and russians. Why? Because they and most people on the world belived that russian and france would crush germany with its weak austrian-hungarian ally. They did not know that germany was superior in military things. Nobody was. Even the german generals not. So they hoped to influence things in a way that suited them.
THat is also clear if we think about the french and russian naval production. They planned to build so many battleships, that UK would fall back behind. Look at the numbers of 1920 - with no war. France + Russia would have had more battleships as UK.
Still the Royal Navy NEVER saw germany as a threat - they just used it to get more money for its enlargement. Something that wasn´t new, but as old as the military itself. First it was the french fleet, then the russian, then the german.
It is funny that the british broke their own back by entering that war, falling in a scenario in that their empire vanishes...
But in all these scenarios the germans aren´t white nor black. Such things did not exist in that time (or today). All was grey, good and bad things would have happen.
By the way, a poster had mentioned italy - if the Entente (or better france and UK) would betray italy by accepting such peace with Austria-Hungaria - they will have created in times of war an enemy on their own side. That person quite clear described the consequences of that. Romania and Italy drop out, but the germans are stronger as before because they do not need to "finance/suppor" austria-hungaria anymore.
