Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > America enters the War |
Posted by: Imperialist March 17, 2006 04:19 pm |
There was no Pearl Harbour, no 911, yet the US decided to enter the War. The official explanation was that with Germany's declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, the US would practically be at war. Another argument was that Germany violated international law by waging unrestricted sub. warfare, yet Britain did the same thing earlier in the war by completely blockading Germany. Fact is the US cut diplomatic relation with Germany the moment it declared unrestricted submarine warfare, yet the US entry in the war occured 2 months later. The amount of british ships sunk in that period by german u-boats grew at a high rate, so is it fair to say that the US got involved fearing Britain would be weakened by the attrition? |
Posted by: Jeff_S March 17, 2006 08:32 pm | ||
Very true, but consider the effect of each of these actions on the US. Britain cost the US trade with Germany, but made up for this with increased trade with Britain and her colonies. Britain wasn't sinking US ships. Germany was. There was significant isolationist feeling in the US. The slaughter of WWI would deter any country that did not have truly vital interests at stake. It's not as if the US was about to be invaded. (German meddling in Mexico not withstanding) The ideological motives that existed in WW2 were much weaker in WW1. There were empires on both sides. Also remember that Germany was the largest single source of immigrants to the US. Many of these were relatively recent, coming after the revolutions of 1848 (when my family came from Germany to the US) or later. It's not that they were not patriotic Americans, but most of them were not happy about going to war with their family's home country. |
Posted by: Imperialist March 17, 2006 09:26 pm | ||
Yes, but this eliminates the idea that the US entered the war to uphold international law or principles. Its just another example of self interest covered in fancy talk about principles and ideals, in order to mobilise domestic support/morale. At the time (end of 19th start of 20th century) there was plenty of talk about a special Anglo-Saxon relationship between America and the British Empire. There were serious articles and fiction books (some of which were close to prophetical) about it. That friendship was obvious in practice too, in WWI, WWII. (and in the Global War on Terror nowadays). I also think Hitler did learn something from this WWI experience. The fact that Britain could not be strangled without the US entering the war left only one possibility -- conquering the USSR, and made an ambitious naval policy unnecessary before that. |
Posted by: Imperialist March 17, 2006 10:09 pm |
US senators presenting their arguments in opposition to Wilson's decision: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=602 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=649 edit - Robert M. LaFollette's message was edited due to its length, and some interesting parts were left out |
Posted by: RHaught March 18, 2006 12:35 am | ||
Well, actually the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 (ended the War of 1812) ensured a lasting peace between the US and Great Britain. As for WWI, in the beginning the US protested blockades by both sides saying they broke the neutrality acts by not allowing the US to trade with other countries. The sinking of the Lusitania angered many Americans but didn't get the politicians to act. What actually did was the Zimmerman Note which was the last draw. To promise a country former territory to declare war and invade (yes we were vunerable to invasion due to a very weak military) sort of ticked the public off which sent the ball in motion. We are told about the vote and that some members in Congress voted against it (if you paid attention and had a good teacher). Without American troops and supplies, most likely the Entente would have had to seek a truce due to the Russian withdrawl in 1917/18 which freed many German and Austrian-Hungarian divisions. Romania's contribution is what should be looked at. Whipped in a reasonable amount of time by the Germans, Austrians and Bulgarians but still gets territory at the Versaille Treaty meetings. Damn, to get beat and still come out on top is a little weird if you must say. quote fixed by moderator |
Posted by: Imperialist March 18, 2006 12:59 am | ||||
I wasnt sure about this so I did a quick search. The Germans promised to support Mexico's claims in case war errupted between America and Germany.
http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/Staff/Shoberg/History/wwi/zimmer.htm As for vulnerable to invasion - whose invasion? Mexico's? Germany was in no position to invade. And I dont think the US had much to fear from Mexico. There was a reason the military was weak -- powerful and quick invasions unlikely. take care |
Posted by: sid guttridge April 03, 2006 01:51 pm |
Hi Imperialist, The USA entered WWII because of Pearl Harbour. That is the basic fact of it. What is more, Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around, so the USA can hardly be accused of being over eager to use Pearl Harbour as an excuse. Why are you surprised that the USA's actions were governed by national self interest? That is what national governments are elected for. You should only be surprised if any national government doesn't put national self interest first. Britain's blockade of Germany at the outbreak of war was materially and legally different from Germany's U-boat campaign. Germany conducted unrestricted U-boat warfare from the start. However, the British surface blockade initially consisted of the stopping and searching of all shipping, as Germany's U-boats should legally have done. I would suggest that there was no close special relationship between the USA and UK at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries. In fact the two states were rivals for dominance in the global maritime and economics spheres, just as Germany and Russia/USSR were competing to become the dominant land power on the Eurasian land mass. The UK was in relative decline and on the defensive towards the USA at that time. For example, in the 1890s the British could no longer support a major squadron in the Caribbean and the US Navy filled the vacuum. The historical connection between the two powers meant that unlike the Germans and Russians, who fought to the death over Eurasian land supremacy, the UK gradually abdicated its position to the USA peacefully. In 1914 the UK was still trying to maintain a fleet as powerful as the next two powers combined, but the Washington Naval Treaty of the early 1920s made the the UK and USA co-equal naval powers between the war. The so-called "special relationship" is really something that grew during and after WWII. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: Florin June 05, 2006 04:47 am |
What actually sunk Lusitania (a vessel of 56000 tons) in 1915 was not the only one German torpedo hit, but the explosion with that occasion of the American ammunition secretly carried on a passenger boat, to the benefit of United Kingdom, in defiance with all international laws acting in that moment. Selling ammunition to the U.K. was a gross breach of the American neutrality, and by using in secret passenger vessels for delivery made the whole matter illegal. The propagandistic blow ("the German monsters kill civilians traveling on passenger vessels") was the beginning of the end for the German war effort, because while the German government put a hold to the submarine warfare against commercial vessels, until 1917, the British kept starving Germany with their blockade, between 1915...1917. In 1917, a desperate and starving German nation started the total submarine warfare - an excuse for president Wilson to drag the U.S. into war. |
Posted by: Wings_of_wrath June 05, 2006 09:04 am | ||
Florin, the most likely cause for Lusitania's demise is actually a coal-bunker secondary explosion triggered by the torpedo hit, and not deflagration of the "secret" cargo, that can still be found, intact, at the wreck site. The fact that Lusitania was carrying military cargo, thus making her a "legit" target is probably the reason US politicians were so reticent to act agressively against Germany despite the public outrage (that in turn was orchestrated by the "Pro-War" factions) And, as far as I can see it, Wilson was always partial to going to war, but he was worried about re-election, so he pretended he wanted to barter a peace between Germany and Britain in late 1916 (all while secretly aiding the UK). After he won said elections, he was quick enough to say he didn't agree with the Kaiser's peace terms, drop the whole thing and start gearing up for hostilities, despite no formal declaration of war had been drawn up at that time. (In fact, German Naval Command waited until the start of 1917 to restart their "Unrestricted Submarine Campaign", in the vain hope that somehow, the peace talks would be resumed) Meanwhile, German diplomats, who were actually struggling to reach an agrreement with Britain, since the noose of the Allied Blokade was tightening on their nation's neck, went into a state of frenzy, and it is at this time that the famous Zimmerman Telegram was concieved and sent. In my oppinion, this was a desperate bid to cover their behinds against an American involvement in the war, by securing an alliance with Mexico using as an incentive the potential territorial gains Mexico could get out of the whole deal, and not a plan to invade the USA, as many claimed afterwards*. The very start of the telegram mentions the fact that "Germany is most intrested in mantaining American neutrality" so the latter meaning was atributed to the text by allied spin-doctors, who siezed the opportunity to parade the letter in the media, with a clear intent of stirring up patriotic feelings in the general public, as well as casting Germany in the villan's role. What is astonishing is the fact that the disclosing of the telegram's text to the american public on March 1, 1917 did not produce much response, while the latter apology by Zimmerman, published on March 3, that perplexically confirmed, in a totally un-diplomatic move, the basic meaning of the intercept sparked an uproar of Anti-German sentiment. So I'd say it was this blunder more than anything else that alowed Wilson and his acolytes to drag tyhe US in the Great War, so it should be marked as an auto-goal by the German Diplomatic Corps and most notably the German Secret Services, that failed to properly analyze the situation of the USA in the first place. So, IMHO, with the notable exception of Belgium and Croatia, all the nations involved in WW1 walked to war voluntarily, and not because they had no choice, as some people try to imply about USA's involvent in the conflict. *because, let's face it, the mexican army was in no shape for an invasion of the US, so probably Zimmerman's original idea was to forge an alliance with Mexico, send them some money (because although there was a lack of food and raw materials in Germany at the time, courtesy of the allied blockade, they still had a lot of gold left), then offer them as a juicy distraction to the American army, in the hope that somehow that would buy enough time to either break the stalemate on the Western Front or bring the Allies to the Negotiations Table with their "Unrestricted Submarine Campaign" before enough US troops would cross the Atlantic to affect the balance of force in Northern France. The Mexican diplomats were not stupid, so quite understandibly they would hear nothing about it... |
Posted by: Florin June 05, 2006 04:18 pm | ||
OK. In general I accept what you wrote. I quoted the text above to remind that also Greece was pushed into war over her head, and they had no choice but to enter in it (I am talking about the landing of Sarrail and his troops, mostly to convince the politicians from Bucharest to do something.) Greece was also pushed into war against her will in WWII, but then it was a much more common story. It is funny that the Ottoman Empire was very eager to enter in WW One, as ally of any of the side who would accept it. But either Germany, either France and Britain were very reluctant to accept the Turks as allies, and eventually the side was decided by a succession of events which is detailed in the books dedicated to WWI. |
Posted by: Wings_of_wrath June 06, 2006 08:43 am |
Right. I knew I'd forgotten something... ![]() Indeed, Greece was dragged into WWI against her will, the same that happened in WW2. As for the Ottomans, well, I'm pretty sure they were rearing to go to war, to try and get back at least some of their earlier posessions. And let's not forget that, at the time Turkey had a sense of renewed hope in its military might, with the siezing of the power by the "Young Turks" in 1908 and the reforms that followed. Of course, it won't be until the 1920's and Kemal Ataturk's rise to power, that the country will truly begin to align itself to the standards present in the western world, but still, despite the common oppinion of the Ottoman Empire as the "Sick man of Europe", I'd say they still had a lot of fighting spirit left in them... And, of course, some modern military technology, as the British and ANZAC troops found out at their expense during the abortive Dardanelles Campaign... The matter of the alliance is simple: as mentioned above, France and Britain (and the rest of Europe) had very low oppinions on the turks, and that preconception made them laugh at a possible alliance with the Ottoman Empire, as well as severely underestimate it's military might during the campaign to force the Bosphorious Strait. In fact, we can say the turks stood their ground, despite fighting on several fronts: The actions at Gallipoli were an Allied disaster, as was the British Campaign in Mesopotamia, that ended with the humiliating siege of Kut. As for the planned surprise attack in the Caucasus by Tzarist Russia, that quickly bogged down after some initial sucess (Enver Pasha's failure as a commander, most notably, had the Turks expelled from Armenia), and stable positions were held until Russia's departure from the conflict in 1917. They also grappled with an Arab rebellion in the Middle East (I guess a gent by the name of Lawrence had something to to with that), and, despite being defeated in Palestine in 1917-18 (the loss of Jerusalem and the battle of Meggido), on the whole, Turkey did a lot better that was to be expected from a country that was suposedly "finished". Of course that din't stop the Entente pressing humiliating peace terms on the Ottomans (the Treaty of Sevres), because after the defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Turkey would now have been on her own against a vastly supperior force of allied soldiers. But despite the diplomatic failures of the Sultan, Turkey was still not yet finished, as can be seen by Ataturk's private campaigns to throw out the French, British, Italian and Greek soldiers that had occupied some parts of the country following the Treaty of Sevres. Still weak after WWI, both France and Britain whitdrew their forces from Turkey, as did the Italians after some persuation, but The Greeks launched a lightning campaign against Constantinople (the city's name was changed to Istambul in 1930) and made some intial progresss, before being met and terminally defeated at Sakarya in august 1921. Okay, but enough wandering ouside of the subject- back to the discusion of America- as far as I know, the US had no involvement in the Middle East whatsoever during WW1. Or had they? |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 06, 2006 01:03 pm | ||
Hallo Gentlemen. ![]() I must enter a contradiction here; A recent tv programme shown on the Discovery channel has shown there was NO AMMUNITION carried on the Lusitania, the Torpedoes ignited the highly volatile Coal Dust in the ships coal bunkers, (as the ship was nearing the end of her trans-atlantic journey her coal bunkers were nearly empty) the resulting explosion was the cause of the ship going down. The programe also showed that despite a careful underwater survey of the wreck NO trace of any ammunition, bullets or shells etc was to be found, and before you suggest it no the British didnt remove it all of the wreck after she sank. So another conspiricy theory gets SUNK!!! ![]() Germany suffered because their Kaiser was interested in expanding his land locked empire, he always wanted an empire to equal the British and was not content with the small colonies in Africa and the East. And accepting an invite to join his cousin Franz Joseph of Austria in a war, seemed a way for him to realise his ambition. Late in the war the German General Staff was running the show Kaiser Bill was reduced to a mere figure head, the top brass knew they were losing, but with propaganda deluded the German people into thinking otherwise, why was there starvation occuring in Germany?? because all the able-bodied farmers were put into the army and sent to the front, the women and old, unfit for war service men, left to tend the fields, also confiscation of foodstuffs, that were to be used to feed the army. After their last ditch attempt to win in May 1917 lead Von Unruh to admit in early June 1917 " In truth the brilliant offensive had petered out". But in June 1917 the first of the US troops stepped onto shores of France, thus sealing the fate of the Germans, Hundreds of thousands of fit fresh, young men from an inexhaustable supply in America, whereas the Germans had shot their bolt, down to scrapping the barrel, ever increasing desertions by troops being moved from the Eastern Front to the West. The USA was a late enterant into a conflict which, having been up to that point largely, though far from exclusively, a European war, could now be fairly labeled a "World War". An intially reluctant President and people had been persueded by a series of events and preasures that they could not stand aside. Unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, adding to the shock of earlier, widely publicized events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, and the introduction of poison gas the impact of the infamous Zimmerman telegram which, intercepted and decoded by the British, appeared to show that the Germans were prepared to support Mexicam military and territoral ambition against thoseof the United States (the occupation of TEXAS was always a bone of contention between the Mexicans and the USA). Yet while America had a substaintial Navy, she had no real modern army to send "over there" to Europe. As a recent American historian as written: "The cadre of professional soldiers was small, scattered over forts and garrisons in the USA and stationed in far-flung colonial outposts such as ones in the Phillipine Islands. . . . Divisions exsisted only on paper . . . in 1917, most of the eager soldiers would train with wooden mock-ups for rifles, machine guns and mortars, and some would go to France without the most rudimentry instruction in rifle assembly, care and cleaning, and marksmanship. The much valued American right to bear arms did not automativally guarantee the nation a mass of competant sharpshooters. Not unlike the British in 1914, America had to begin the process (in 1917) of reinventing herself as a twentieth-century belligerant, converting her industry to a war-footing with few, if any, blue-prints for exspansion. Also like British she had to turn herself into a land-power. In so doing she would face the difficult ordeal of joining a campaign in which the other players already had a three-year advatage in knowledge and experiance. Guts and enthusiasm would clearly not be enough. A good book to read is MALCOM BROWNE's The Imperial War Museum Book of 1918, The Year of Victory. ISBN 0 330 37672 1 Trying to use one specific country's methods or reasons from past conflicts to give justification to modern conflicts wont work, all conflicts are different, with many options and variables. Kevin in Deva. ![]() |
Posted by: Wings_of_wrath June 06, 2006 08:29 pm | ||||||||||
Ranger, if you read my earlier post on the subject, you can see that I agree on the coal-bunker explosion as the cause of Lusitania's sinking. However, I must disagree with you about the military cargo. I don't know about the documentary on Discovery Channel you saw, but a cargo of rifles, rifle amunition, shrapnel shell cases and fuzes* is recorded on the ship's manifest, albeit not in the "official" one filled before the ship's departure from New York, but on a second, "suplementary" one, filled by the port officials while Lusitania was 2 days into her trip. This was probably done for securty reasons, so that any potential spies would not know of the actual cargo she was carrying. Anyway, despite it's military nature, the goods she carried were of a rather inert nature (rifle cartriges are "unexplosive in bulk quantities" and tend to burn quietly rather than burst all at once), so if the torpedo had struck the cargo hold instead of the coal bunker, it is likely that no secondary explosion would have followed, and a lot more lives would have been saved. The whole "German monsters sinking unarmed merchantmen" was mostly propaganda, because the captain of the Lusitania had orders to attack by ramming any U-boat that tried to stop her by ordering her surrender (there have been recorded incidents of such rammings being sucessful before the incident involving Lusitania), so I can certainly understand the reticence of Kapitanleutnant Schwieger to surface U-20 and signal the ship to stop... Not to mention the fact there is a controversy involving the presence of at least two 4.7 inch guns on board Lusitania to be used "if the need arises", but since no material evidence about this armament exist beyond word of mouth, I tend not to take that into consideration. *To be more specific, "4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, 1248 cases of 3 inch Shrapnel shells filled, eighteen cases of fuzes", and I recomend you read the article 'Riddle of the Lusitania" in the April 1994 issue of the reputed National Geographic Magazine, where they have photographs of some of the fuzes lying scattered at the wrecksite.
Why was there a food shortage in Germany? In terms of food, Germany was never self-suficient and relied masively on imports, and since the British Grand Fleet was busy confiscating any cargo bound for Germany, including food and medical supplies, this was the logical outcome. It had nothing to do with the quality of the work in the field, and soldiers ate little better than the general population.
You can read my oppinions on the matter in my earlier posts. IMHO, Wilson was never anti-war, and was just waiting for the most advantageous moment to step in and "save the day"- for it's implication in the Great War, the USA was awarded war reparations. Of course, he still had the problem of convincing Congress to do his bidding, but that was solved with a bit of shrewd media manipulation, as well as that collosal blunder made by Zimmerman on March3, of actually confirming that the intercepted telegram was genuine...
Well, the vast majority of soldiers were actually used as cannon fodder, so inexperience was not a problem... But you are right about this- the initial results of American troops in battle were mediocre at best, and both common soldiers and officers had to embark in a cras course of trench warfare 101 before being able to cope with the difficult conditions on the Western Front. However, as with the Soviet Union in WW2, quantity was more important thean quality, and it was the overwhelming mass of fresh US soldiers, coupled with the mounting pressure on the home front (riots and demonstrations regarding the lack of food) as well as ad-hoc strikes in the german personnel (the famous mutiny of the Hochseeflotte, for example) that finally brought Germany to its knees.
No they're not. While technology might change (a higher technological level accounts for more fatalities) the reasons behind confilcts are remacably similar, to the point of becoming boring. It's always some squalid story of greed, money and power, no matter where and when it takes place. Wars happen for one simple reason: There will always be idiots that will want something that belongs to the neighbour, and unfortunately, sometimes these idiots happen to be runnig countries at the time... |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 07, 2006 07:21 am |
Hallo Wings_of_Wrath ![]() Now I would like to see the Captain of a ship the size of the Lusitania try to engage a U-Boat in a collision course, the U-Boats would always, even on the surface remain of to either the Port or Starboard side of its hugh target, passenger liners were never noted for their ability to make quick course changes, requiring some kilometers of distance to come to a full stop (ie when the engines stop turning the ship is still moving, no brakes!!!). And I have never read or sen evidence of a ship the size of the Lusitania ramming a U-Boat in any war. As for a cargo manifest being issued two days later! well lets hope the enemy dont have access to a wireless telegraph to signal the information back to the German Naval HQ, maybe they were using carrier pidgeons ![]() So the great area of agricultural production known as Bavaria was producing nothing in WW1, just what food supplies had Germany to import into the country?? Fruit? She had Dairy produce, Meat, Milk, Bread, all the grain she wanted from Europe coming up the Danube, the one thing she didnt have was enough raw materials to produce weapons, and keep the war industry going. And of course if the British Grand Fleet was so busy confiscating all the food bound for Germany there would have been no need to send troops to France just starve the Germans into submission. Germany was in fact exporting more out than taking in of food produce. Remember, Germany did not invade Belgium and France for food, it invaded to expand the Prussian Reich. And Germany which even during the course of the war was able to supply far better medical services to the Army than either France, Belgium, Britain, more German soldiers were treated for their wounds and then returned for duty than any other country involved in the conflict, so your statement about being keep short of medical supplies dosent hold up! With regards Woodrew Wilson waiting to step in and save the day, surely they would have geared up their industry sooner, as it was they were still ill-prepaired for War. And if the majority of the Americans were just to be used as cannon-fodder, how come this theory of mass over might didnt work with the poorly equipped, under armed, Romanian Army, surly a few mass banzi charges would have helped overwhelm the might of the Austro-Hungarian empire ![]() Most of the very early American casualties came from inexperiance in trench warfare, they were having to learn what the Allies learned over a course of 3 years, the were brave, and quick to learn, but their National pride, caused them to make some foolhardy attacks, but, once the Americans got the hang of the style of fighting their intial casualty rate began to fall. They were also kept under an American commander and were never to be totaly under the control of the British or French. And it is true until the supplies began to arrive from the USA they had to use French and British equipment. Kevin in Deva. ![]() |
Posted by: Wings_of_wrath June 07, 2006 10:44 am | ||||||||||||
Well, I never said ramming from the part of Lusitania would be practical, but that was the order given to all British captains, and the Germans knew it. Albeit ramming from a ship the size of Lusitania seems unlikely, in the Admiralty fleet register she was marked as an armed auxiliary cruiser from December 1914 onwards, end even if her main armament of twelve 6-inch guns had not been installed yet, there was no way for the German commander to have known that. He just identified the ship as “either the Lusitania or Mauretania, both armed cruisers”, and shot a torpedo. He certainly wasn’t going to expose his sub to fire just to see wherever Lusitania was indeed armed. In fact, there is an incident happening a few months after Lusitania that proves that submarines were at risk from traps set up by the British: "On 19 August 1915 the British freighter NICOSIAN, hauling mules from New Orleans to England, was stopped by U-27 about seventy miles from Queenstown. The submarine fired a warning shot and the crew abandoned ship. The British ship BARALONG, ostensibly a cargo ship but in reality a Q-ship, came on the scene, flying an American flag (this is generally regarded, perhaps surprisingly, as legitimate ruse of war, provided the ship's true colours are displayed before she opens fire). When about a hundred yards from U-27 BARALONG raised her British colours and opened fire, sinking U-27. About six Germans, including the captain, were shot in the water. About six others boarded the deserted NICOSIAN. Royal Marines boarded NICOSIAN with orders to take no prisoners, and the defenceless German sailors were hunted down and shot. Although early British accounts denied that an atrocity had occurred, the incident was witnessed by neutral American mule-handlers from NICOSIAN who had no reason to invent such a story. [Bailey and Ryan, pp. 50-51; Devlin, pp. 413-18]" Also, I believe there was a notion of tactics involved - Lusitania was travelling at almost 18knots when she was torpedoed, and her maximum speed was 21. U-20's speed was 15.4 knots on the surface, and 9.5Kts submerged, but she could only keep that speed up for one hour, before her batteries ran out. So in my mind, it's clear that had she known U-20 was there, Lusitania could have easily outrun her, so the only way Schwieger could have sunk the liner is a surprise attack. On the other hand, Kapitanleutnant Schwieger was known to be an extremely cautious man, even bordering on the paranoid, as wel as pretty ruthless, since he earlier attacked a ship flying the Norwegian flag, as he assumed it to be a British merchantman in disguise.
You are forgetting, of course, this was WWI we are talking about. Wireless telegraphy was still in it's infancy and the only reliable way to communicate between the "old" and "new" continents was by the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph wires, and it was by this means that spies had to relay intelligence back to the Germany. But anyway, the ruse of the "fake manifest" is quite simple, and has a psychological reason: a ship's manifest is a document prepared prior to a ship's leaving port, and aids in making sure that all cargo bound to go on that ship has actually been loaded, as well as aiding the port authorities keep track of what has been sent where. And, of course, it's at this time that any spy would want to check the ship's manifest to see what it's carrying. However, were you to have cargo you do not wish other people to know about, but still wanted to keep track of, it's easier just to make an incomplete manifest when the ship departs, then add the missing items on a second, "supplementary" manifest, a few days later after the ship has sailed, because it's pretty unlikely that anyone will come and rifle trough the archives once the ship in question has left port, just in case there might have been items that were omitted from the original loading manifest. Add that ruse to a harbour where hundreds of ships load and unload daily, and it makes a very remote possibility for anyone to realise a new manifest has been drawn up, secure a way to transmit it over the Atlantic, have it reach German Naval HQ in time to mobilize any u-boats in the area to intercept the ship, all in the short three days needed for Lusitania to complete her journey...
I hope this answers your question: "In 1850 Germany exported food-stuffs and raw materials, and imported manufactured goods; now [c. 1905] her principal exports are manufactured goods, and her imports are raw materials and foodstuffs. In this period she has changed from an agricultural to a manufacturing and commercial nation." E.D. Howard, The Cause and Extent of the Recent Industrial Progress of Germany, 1907 The problem was that same with Romania after WW2: the rapid industrialization and urbanization of Germany in the late 19th century meant that less and less people were available to work the fields, so the agricultural production dwindled, while the industry was on the rise, and this was even before WW1 started. As from the supplies coming up the Danube, where were they supposed to come from? Austria-Hungary, who had a food shortage problem of her own? Russia, that was at war with the Central powers? Romania, that entered the war on the side of the Entente? Not to mention the fact I find it highly implausible for anything bound for Germany to have passed trough the Romanian controlled section of the Danube, especially foodstuffs. Also, about 135 ships of various sizes had their cargo confiscated by the British monthly in 1916, and as may of 800000 German civilians are known to have died from starvation in the last three years of the war. Put two and two together, and you get…
I don't remember making any statement about medical supplies, but I must tell you they lacked on both sides of the front, because the medical facilities that, before the war were at least adequate if not sufficient, were now under tremendous strain. And indeed, it's the Germans that managed to get the best medical services of the war, partly because of their better organization and the quality of their medical staff.
Like I said, he had a problem with the US Congress. Unless Congress agreed that the country should go to war, any action from his part would have been seen as highly suspect and inappropriate, and nothing would have been more stupid than try to prepare the American economy for the conflict before an official stance was drawn up, as it would have been a dead give away on his intentions to everybody, especially the Germans. Oh, and by the way, his name is actually “Woodrow”.
First off: the Americans were used as cannon fodder pretty much like any other infantryman of WW1, as they were made to charge into the mouth of machine and large calibre guns. Secondly: it was by sheer number that any breach would have been obtained on the Western front. It’s not as much 10000 men against 5000, it’s the notion of 1000 men with guns against a lot less men with guns. Since any man has an average of 2 arms that can hold only one rifle, you can begin to see how a number advantage can swing the tide of war your way… Thirdly: I suppose that by “banzi” you actually mean “banzai”, a Japanese word literally meaning “ten thousand years of life”, that would have been used a cheer to express exuberance and as such would have been translated "Long life!" or "Hurrah!” It is improper to associate it with suicidal attacks just because Japanese soldiers had a habit of shouting "Tennouheika Banzai!"(天皇陛下万歳!) or “Long Live the Emperor!” before performing such acts… If I chose to crash my airplane onto an enemy battleship and shouted “Traiasca Romania!” while doing it, would that make it a “traiasca” or a “Romania” attack? But back to the subject at hand… You can’t be serious! Romania had managed to raise an army of 23 divisions, or as much as 643,000 poorly trained, poorly equipped troops, and the Central Powers had as much as 39 divisions (9 divisions in the Bulgarian-German-Turkish group, the rest German and Austrian) and even if those weren’t all battle hardened troops, and we had the help of 12 Russian Divisions (out of the grand total of 136 the Tsarist Army comprised) you can’t possibly suggest we had a distinct number advantage over the Central Powers… As for the overwhelming theory… Well, that worked all right on the Eastern Front in WW2, when the Russians attacked the Romanian forces at the Don Bend... However, Romania had by no means a big enough force to sustain this kind of warfare, and especially this kind of casualty rate, despite its losses in WW1 being of at least 74% of all the men mobilised (535,706 including wounded out of 800,000 mobilised by the end of the war), third highest ratio after that of Russia and France. (By comparison, the Germans got 64.9%, with 7,142,558 killed or wounded out of 11 million soldiers) Also, I agree with the rest of the message concerning the American casualties, and how after the initial disasters thay got the hang of it and managed to get their own casualty rate down. |
Posted by: Victor June 07, 2006 01:08 pm | ||
Please stick to the topic of WW1. Several posts will be moved to a new WW2 related discussion here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=3320 Also, New Connaught Ranger and Imperialist, avoid getting into personal remarks about eachother. Neutral countries are allowed trade with beligerant countries. The problem for Germany in WW1 was that it was unable to trade with the US, due to the Entente naval blockade. The fact that there was more simpathy in the US for the British is no secret, nor should it be a crime. After all, there was much support for France in Romania as well, during the neutrality period. |
Posted by: Imperialist June 07, 2006 08:24 pm | ||
It's not a crime. But where you see mere sympathy, I see more, at least a pattern. At least in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. ![]() ![]() |
Posted by: RHLV June 07, 2006 11:56 pm |
And exactly what does the above picture have to do with the First World War? I don't see either Wilson or Lloyd George in it. Rich |
Posted by: Iamandi June 08, 2006 06:11 am |
Maybe, Imperialist want to underline a continuity... Iama |
Posted by: Iamandi June 08, 2006 06:13 am |
How could germans invade USA? USA had her fleet, and was a large and powerfull one. But, for doing that invasion germans need to confont UK and France fleets. Iama |
Posted by: Victor June 08, 2006 06:45 am | ||
And some claimed to have seen UFOs. Do you have to turn any discussion on historical into one on present-day politics? |
Posted by: Imperialist June 08, 2006 07:18 am | ||
History is past politics and past politics are the roots of present day politics. You cannot discuss history in a vacuum. I dont see how I turned the discussion into a present day politics one though. Just because I mentioned that at the start of the 21st century and the 1st war of the century the US and UK are close allies as they were during the wars of the 20th? And I dont understand why you try to mock this as a conspiracy theory. take care |
Posted by: dead-cat June 08, 2006 09:08 am | ||
during WW1 the US fleet was neither that large nor that powerful and without combat experience. the US-fleet became powerful before and during WW2. |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 08, 2006 12:08 pm | ||||
American combat experiance before WW1 was in the badlands, with minor Indian wars, and the Spanish.Mexican War when the Americans were fighting in Cuba. The American fleet at this time (WW1) was spread out all over the Globe, particularly in the South China Seas, and the Phillipines, of course there was a small US based fleet for service in home waters. But one has to remember just how large a coastline the USA has. With regards a military invasion it would never have been a mass invasion of the USA by the Germans, but the intention would have been to aid the Mexican Government, who by aggitation, would look for getting the states of Texas, Louisiana, etc. back, After all if they (Germany) had have won the War in Europe they would have had troops & supplies to spare to train the Mexican Army. Kevin in Deva. ![]() |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 08, 2006 12:31 pm | ||||
Point 1; Well thats 1,710 ships* confiscated in 1916 alone, where were the British storing all these ships, with so many on hand, she would not need to ask the USA for ships, and would not have had to introduce the British people to Food Rationing. Also shipping if and when captured in 1916 would not have helped anybody in 1919. Most civilian deaths immediately after the war were caused by the infamous Spanish Influenza Virus, which killed countless milions of people the world over. * please feel free to check my math, as, with my spelling its not so hot ![]() Point 2; How were the Americans "Made to charge" this implies they had to be forced to attack and move forward, in reality many American officers had difficulty in controling how fast the men were moving forward they (like the British & French in 1914) were eager to get to grips with the enemy. Also with regards the mouths of large caliber guns, these were situated well behind enemy lines and not in the front line, Artillery work by lobbing shells from a great distance, with shells fited with time fuses, rarely if ever where large caliber guns any use for close-quarter ground fighting (grape and canister shot) long being changed for the afore-mentioned air-burst shells with timed fuses.) Nobody in the right mind would expect a charge against a machine-gun position to work, thats why the use of flanking attacks were very carefully rehearsed before the actual battlei n the rear staging areas, and also at this stage of WW1 the Allies could place more artillery along the front with more supplies than the Germans. Point 3; Initial Disasters? disaster implies very serious casualties or a total failure to exploit the situation, the Americans had very acceptable casualty rates |
Posted by: dead-cat June 08, 2006 12:37 pm |
in 1914 the USN had: Dreadnoughts 10, which, despite the all-centerline turret design, were quite slow. Pre-dreadnoughts 23 Armored cruisers 12 Protected cruisers 24 light cruisers 3 destroyers/TB 50 subs 27. no battlecruisers the fastest AC could make 22 knots which means they were an easy prey for battlecruisers. the PC-s were obsolete even by 1914 (also in the 18-22 knots range). one has to notice the almost complete lack of modern cruisers (only 3). this is a fleet build for defence purposes and was not in a condition (neither equipment nor experiencewise) to challenge the HSF without british aid. the wartime additions wouldn't change the balance much. that being said, even in a lone Germany vs. USA scenario, the HSF did not have the transport capacity to mount an amphibious landing on the US coast, neither to sustain a reasonable amount of landed troops there. nor would they have enough ships to secure trans-atlantic supply runs. a german invasion under the given circumstances would be as unrealistic as a US invasion of Germany in a Germany vs. US scenario. Germany could only fight a proxy war by supplying the mexican army. |
Posted by: Wings_of_wrath June 09, 2006 08:16 am | ||||||
1) I said they were confiscating thecargo, not the actual ship! Normally, any ship suspected of heading to Germany would be diverted from it's course, escorted to a friendly harbour, made to unload and then let go if it belonged to a neutral country, or confiscated if she belonged to the Central powers. And the numbers I posted do not include those who died in the Influenza pandemic, just those who reportedly died because of malnutrition. 2) Indeed, I should probably have said "led to" instead of "made", but the result was the same. The Americans failed to capitalize on the knowledge gained by the British and French in three years of trench warfare, and commited the same foolish mistakes the other allies had commited in 1914-15. The "charging into the mouths of guns" was a figure of speech, and a consacrated one for that. Of course any heavy artillery would have been located kilometers behind the main front, but that doesn't matter, since all those guns are allready zeroed in on the "killing field" in front of the German trenches, and a devastating barrage could be launched with a momen't notice. And for the record, when most if not all of the no man's land is covered by enemy machineguns, there is no flanking attack possible. Also, the only "rehearsed" action I am aware of to have taken place during WW1 is the Canadian attack on the Vimy Ridge, that was planned one year in advance, the troops were trained using both scale and real size models and when they went into action it proved to be a stellar sucess. However, HQ deemed the training process as too long and difficult for the actual gains, so any further operation of the kind was scrapped and the idea put on hold. Even at the start of the next war the Allies were slow to grasp on the idea of "train hard, fight easy", since, unlike the Germans, who mounted some very well coreographed and rehearsed operations, like the siezing of the Belgian fortress "Eben Emael", the first such actions were the clandestine raids mounted by the special branches of the military, like the SAS in North Africa or the SOE in occupied Europe. Even the costly disaster at Dieppe was based on poor intelligence and was insuficiently rehearsed, despite the fact the planning phase had been quite long. Of course, afterwards they started to learn from their mistakes, and the rest, is, as they say, history. 3) Depending on your point of view, the use of the word "Disaster" does not necesarily mean great loss of life, just a general failure to achieve the mission's goals. For example, one might exclaim "what a disaster" after their favourite footbal (soccer for those of you speaking American) team has been defeated, but that does not automatically imply any lives were lost in the process. However, because of their inexperience, the American commanders did fail to exploit any favourable situations, and this alone might clasify as a "disaster" for the goals set have not been achieved. Later edit: Dead-Cat, I agree to your analysis regarding the fighting capabilities of both the US and German Navies. Neither would have hand any chance to mount a direct amphibious assault on the other, and I belive that in WW1 even a Cross-Channel action would have proved a lot more costly in terms of human lives and more prone to failure. The airdrop part of the invasion would have been impossible as would have been massed bombings of the beaches before the landing. The germans would have been well fortified, and, in the absence of fighter bombers to strafe the ammunition convoys in the back of the lines, well supplied with arms and ammunition. A good indication of what to expect in such an action was the Gallipoli campaign, where, despite their numerical superiority and technological advantage (After the first failed attempts at the ANZAC beaches, another, better rehearsed landing was mounted at Suvla Bay, and this had the advantage of troop carrying "beetles", the ancestor of the famous "Higgins" LCA's of WW2, yet it developed into the same bloody stalemate found on the Western Front) the British, Australian and New Zealand troops were beaten back by a Turkish force of inferior strenght and with a lot less heavy weapons. (on "Q" beach, the advance of British troops was halted by just 2 Maxim machineguns placed in strategic positions, while the landing troops carried with them at least 5) That's why I support the theory a German-Mexican alliance was in fact just a decoy for the Americans, who would have felt their border threatened and invaded Mexico before sending their troops over the Atlantic, thus buying the Germans precious time to break the stalemate on the Western Front...or, at least, that was the theory... |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 09, 2006 10:17 am |
Hallo Wings of Wrath ![]() thank you for your kind response to my posts 1. I am not sure about the British confiscating all cargo's from Neutral ships ![]() Of course there was malnutrition, not only in Germany, but as well as Belgium, France, Russia and many other countries because of all civilians being deprived of a healthy diet, but in the case of Germany this cannot be blamed on the British or Americans, Germany was the instigator of the War in Western Europe not the Allies, when Germany occupied Belgium, and murdered unarmed civilians men, women and children on the excuse they were responsible for killing German soldier (a citizen has the right to fight & resist the invader attempting to occupy there country.) and not all reports of this happening were "Propagands" One has to remember here that in the history of Europe Belgian has to be the most fought over and blood soaked teritory, and most of the campaigns there had nothing to do with the people living there, it was a convieniant flat area for mass battles even prior to WW1. 2. Behind the lines training was very common place in WW1, with regards the methods of approaching the enemy positions, securing the positions and even more so practised was the method of trench raids at night, (even though this practise was done in daylight, as it was to accustom the men involved to know their position in the raiding party. Equipment checks to tie down or remove any object of kit that might rattle or make a noise. Before trench raids were carried out the terrain was scouted and routes and "fall back positions" planned and in some cases "lying up positions" if the enemy response to the infiltration was intense, were used to wait out any artillery bombardments. From my personal experience in the army you are taught and rehearse over and over again a basic theme, which can be adapted with minor variations as the officers and section commanders see fit. No plan last beyond the first few minutes of contact with the enemy. Of course the large scale rehearsal for attacking "Vimy Ridge" was not the normal way all attacks were planned or rehersed, far to many troops were employed in "defensive attitude" and to remove these troops for training would weaken the Integrity front-line. 3. At Gallipoli the debacle was entirely the fault of the planners, and Winston Churchill as Sea Lord has to bear the blame, the campaign was planned in London, there were no up to date maps of the peninsular, heavily mined seas, danger of torpedoes from submarines, bad navigation by the navy towing troops in lighters and the troops were landed in all the the wrong places, in all areas the enemy overlooked the beaches, this being a great advantage to enemy troops defending their home-land* as they tend to fight more vigorously, and were thought to be of poor quality and the greatest disadvantage virtually no fresh water, along with the heat, sickness, long supply-lines to Egypt, poor medical facilities, it was a DISASTER for the Allies. The campaign cannot so easily described here in this post in great detail but there are many websites out there that go into great detail on the Gallipoli failure. * the Turkish campaign out of their homeland into Azerbaidian area I believe, proved as equally disaterous for the poorly equiped Turkish soldiers where many were to die from the cold, inadequate food and clothing. As well as poor leadership by their own officers. OFF TOPIC ![]() ![]() ![]() And as I was told by the Administrator to stop straying off the path of this topic into WW2, maybe we should confine ourselves to WW1 specifics. It might interest you to know that men from my home town of Castlebar, and the County of Mayo, where I was raised in Ireland, died in Gallipoli, as well as other theatres of WW1 and some of the ships-stokers on the Lusitania, were from County Mayo as well. wishing you a pleasent weekend ![]() Kevin in Deva. ![]() |
Posted by: dead-cat June 10, 2006 10:14 am | ||||
that is very debatable. while i agree that Britain is the least to blame, the other participants actively pursued the path to war.
until 1945 (i think) it was perfectly legal to execute a franctireur. not the entire village that harboured him of course but the "right to hide behind civilian clothes" is a post WW2 "archivement". |
Posted by: Imperialist June 10, 2006 04:06 pm | ||
Yes, but the civilians in Germany, Austria Hungary and Russia were worse off compared with those in France and Britain, due to geographical position and lack of capabilities to put an end to the blockades. |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 10, 2006 09:35 pm |
Well at the end of the day history shows that the German-Austrian Alliance suffered for trying to dominate Western Europe, surely the military planners in the Prussian High Command had thought about the possibility of the US getting involved, but reckoned on taking over France, Belgium, and possibly the United Kingdom before the USA got involved. Germany suffered, Austria suffered, Romania suffered in fact all the countries suffered and the chain of events that started the whole conflict can be traced back to the hand of a man from Serbia, a fool who was trained by a group of renegade Serbian officers, assisted across the border, on his way to kill Franz-Josephs nephew, by Serbian officers, and now the whole world has been re-shaped by the "shot that was heard around the world" Kevin in Deva ![]() |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 12, 2006 10:28 am |
Hi NCR, "The shot that was heard around the world" did not start WWI. It was the device used by a small number of war-mongers in the German and Austrian foreign ministries to trigger a wider war that would settle the hegemony of Europe in their favour. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 12, 2006 12:04 pm |
somehow i don't think Austria-Hungary overreacted. based on examples of recent "events", not at all. |
Posted by: New Connaught Ranger June 12, 2006 07:38 pm | ||
Hi Sid ![]() we agree to disagree, ![]() my point was about who got the ball rolling, not who ran with it ![]() Kevin in Deva ![]() |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 13, 2006 09:51 am |
Hi NCR, I see history as a continuum. Everything has it earlier causes. For example, if Austria-Hungary had not annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina (in 1908?) then Franz Ferdinand would not have been touring Sarajevo. However, while most consequences are unintentional, a few are quite deliberate. Twenty years later Croat and Macedonian nationalists assasinated the King of Yugoslavia while he was on tour in France. This did not provoke a war because nobody then felt it was in their interest. There was no need for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to have provoked war either, because the Serbs gave way on almost every detail of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum that followed it. The Serb state desperately did not want war with a major power like Austria-Hungary. However, some within both the Austro-Hungarian and German foreign ministries did. They chose to make the assassination the excuse for a war that was by no means its inevitable consequence. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 13, 2006 11:04 am | ||||
then it would have probably happened in Croatia. if Germany wanted to go to war they would have done so 1905 when the french army wasn't fully armed and ready.
this doesn't explain the mobilization which they ordered first. just as A.H. had backing from Germany (which could be summerized into "whatever you do, if Russia goes to war against you we go to war against Russia", which they were bound to do by treaty anyways) Serbia had backing from Russia where the panlavist movement was in full swing (and the czar the chairman of the society for perpetuating panslavism). you can go ahead and question the right of existence of a compulsory multinational state like A.-H. but, by the standards of that time, letting anyone to get away with the assasination of a heir would be the nail in coffin of that monarchy. so for A.-H. the affair was existential and same for Germany who could not afford to lose the only (politically) reliable ally. then we can go ahead about french revanchist claims (debatable or not) and we have a recipe for desaster which, Germany didn't encourage much beyond reasonability and other's didn't care to undertake steps (to a similar degree of reasonability) to avoid a war. the result is *BOOM*.
since they were part of Yugoslavia then, it would be hard to declare war on Croatia. this was a yugoslavian internal affair. just like if a czech would've shot the archduke. |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 13, 2006 01:44 pm |
Hi d-c, The fact that Germany may have missed the optimum moment to provoke a wider European war doesn't in any way alter the proposition that elements in its foreign ministry were central to provoking a wider European war in 1914. Serbian mobilisation was in response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum and is entirely explicable on pragmatic grounds when a small country is threatened by a much larger one. Russia did not encourage Serbia to resist the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. France also did not encourage Serbia to resist the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Britain offered to mediate. Serbia therefore gave in on almost every detail of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. However, a small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians, particularly in their foreign ministries, were determined on war. They held back some key facts from the German Kaiser, who was on holiday for most of August 1914 and Austria-Hungary went to war. Cheers, Sid. P.S. No. The assassination of the Yugoslav king was not a purely internal Yugoslav affair. The Croats and Macedonians who carried it out were sponsored by Italy. |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 13, 2006 01:58 pm |
P.P.S. It is also worth pointing out that Gavril Princip was a Bosnian Serb and therefore technically an Austro-Hungarian citizen. The murders of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and King Alexander were both carried out by technical citizens of their own countries sponsored by foreign intelligence services. Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 13, 2006 03:12 pm | ||||||||||
the same can be said then about France&Britain in 1939. the imperial german gov. assured A.-H. of their total support in this affair. if was clear that if Russia will mobilize, then Germany will do so too. from then war is inevitable.
then why did they mobilize on july 28th against A-H? the german chancellor was actually against war but he issued a statement that the russian mobilization (or lack thereof) would decide wether germany would mobilize (and declare war). who exactly did hold back what from the Kaiser?
france was bound by treaty to aid russia in case they would have war declared upon themselves. which was again obvious in case russia would wage war against A-H.
the "black hand" however was a serbian panslavistic organisation. of which he was part of.
yeah and in our context this proves what? that the kingdom of Yugoslavia was a peace-loving nation because they didn't declare war on Italy. in order to do so you need to have not only the intention but also the means. |
Posted by: Imperialist June 13, 2006 04:00 pm |
The causes were far deeper. Allaince system, arms race, the impact of the railroad on troop mobilisation and movements. In my view though Austria-Hungary and Serbia are to blame for the local conflict, Russia is to blame for widening it. They ordered a general mobilisation on the 28th, on the 30th Germany asked them to stop their mobilisation, they didnt and on the 1st Germany declared war. Even if Russia was unaware of the Schlieffen plan, surely they realised a war with Austria Hungary meant war with Germany? And that meant a general European war. Was Serbia that important for them? What was Germany supposed to do? Even if they didnt have a Schlieffen Plan, they would no doubt have been involved against Russia when the conflict between it and A.H. started. And that again, would have meant world war. For Russia Serbia was not crucial, not as crucial as A.H. was for Germany at least. Asking Germany to stay out while A.H. faced Russia in war is far harder than to ask Russia to stay out while Serbia faces A.H. Russia could sacrifice Serbia, they still had France and England, Germany could not sacrifice A.H. take care |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 13, 2006 04:23 pm |
Hi d-c, Yes, the same can be said about France and Britain in 1939. The difference is that it would be wrong, because it was Nazi Germany that was the prime instigator of what became WWII. The difference on that occasion was that the impetus to war in 1939 came from Germany's head of state, Hitler, rather than from belligerent subordinates, as in 1914. Russia partially mobilised because it looked as though Austria-Hungary would not accept Serbia's agreement to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum and launched a war of aggression. That is exactly what happened, even though Serbia had accepted almost all Austro-Hungarian demands and an outside power was offering to mediate. The fact that Britain had offered to mediate and the fact that Serbia had conceded to almost all Austro-Hungarian demands were both held back from the Kaiser, the latter until after the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum had expired. Yes. France was bound by treaty to Russia. But not to Serbia. France had nothing to do with events in the Balkans. It got dragged in later. The fact that the Black Hand was Pan-Slavist is insignificant in terms of the timing of the outbreak of war. The important point was that it received support from some within the Serbian state. This is what gave the assassination an international diplomatic dimension. Austria-Hungary couldn't declare war on Pan-Slavism or the Black Hand. It could on Serbia. Your last paragraph merely emphasises my point. It was not the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that started WWI. It was the factors surrounding it that did - specifically the actions of some within the Austro-Hungarian and German foreign ministries. When King Alexander was assassinated 20 years later, it was not the act of assassination that was significantly different, it was the circumstances surrounding it that were. In 1914 there were some influential people who wanted to use assassination as an excuse for war. In 1934 there were not. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the excuse for Austria-Hungary going to war, but it was not the reason it did so. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 14, 2006 08:16 am | ||||||||||
on this we actually never disagreed. the very moment was determined by the assasionation. other than that it was not a question of "if" it was a question of "when", given the political environment and maybe the "Zeitgeist". but the responsability of the nature of this environment lies with pretty much everybody (albeit to a lesser degree with Britain).
again that depends. yes, nazi germany annexed austria. but austria was forbidden of joining the reich in 1919 even though a referendum showed overwhelming majority. yes germany invaded czechoslovakia. but the situation with the sudetenland was similar with austria. yes germany invaded poland, this time not only to recover "lost" provinces but to completley destroy it (lebensraum). but with the large support of the soviet union which felt threatened by the "capitalist world" since its formation and whose aim was to "encourage" any war between the "capitalist powers" to secure its existence (a doctrine repeated throught pretty much every congress of the CPSU in the 20ies and 30ies). also the framework for WW2 was laid at Versailles and poeple like Hitler used it to gain power. the peace of 1871 left problems unsolved. so did the peace of 1878. and the peace of 1919. those whose problems were left unsoleved prepared for a follow-up war.
exactly. but the same thing you could say about Germany. that's the problem if you commit to an alliance. and france wasn't exactly rejecting the idea of a war with Germany. the was never a "cool down" message to the czar just like there was no german "cool down" message to A-H.
absolutely correct. if my posting implied something else, then it's due misformulation which is entirely my fault.
the assasination was the reason for A.-H. to go to war with Serbia. not with Russia and the rest of the world. i do agree however that there might have been other reasons eventually, if this one would't have appeared. something like a new russian-turkish war. or more likeley (as i don't see A.-H. looking forward to a war as they were the great power with the most internal problems) something like the Morroco-crisis which would touch vital interest of both Germany and France. |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 14, 2006 10:10 am |
Hi d-c, I wouldn't even agree that the moment of the assassination determined when WWI would begin. There was no absolute inevitability about war. The assassination took place on 28 June. There followed a whole month during which almost nobody thought a war was in the offing except for a small number of Germans and Austro-Hungarians who were planning that there should be one. The key date was probably 7 July when, after several days consulting the Germans, the Austro-Hungarians decided that they would deliver their ultimatum to Serbia two weeks later. In the meantime senior officials of both countries were to take their normal holidays "to keep up an appearance that nothing is going on". At 1800 on 23 July the ultimatum was delivered. On 24 July the Russian council of ministers advised Serbia not to resist an Austro-Hungarian invasion, but to let the great powers resolve the issue. At 1800 on 25 July Serbia accepted most Austro-Hungarian terms but requested clarification on on some. On 27 July the German Foreign Minister, von Jagow, pressed Austria-Hungary to act without delay. Austria-Hungary tells Germany that it will declare war not on 12 August, as originally planned, but on 28 July. On 28 July Kaiser Wilhelm, who has been on extended holiday, is finally shown the Serbian reply to the A-H ultimatum. He thinks it acceptable but is too late to stop A-H declaring war at noon. Yup. In 1919 there is little doubt that most Austrians wanted union with Germany. However, this would have left a defeated Germany larger and more homogenous after WWI than before. This was clearly out of the question, so Anschluss was understandably banned by the Versailles treaties. What is more, by the early 1930s Austrians were overwhelmingly voting for parties that were not in favour of union with Germany. As a result the Nazis had to resort to a coup attempt in July 1934, in which they assassinated the Austrian chancellor but were soundly defeated. Hitler occupied Austria militarily in 1938 because he was worried that a cleverly worded plebiscite by the Austrian government would reject union with Germany. He then held his own plebiscite which was conducted in an extremely dubious manner. Austrian public opinion on the matter of union with Germany fluctuated over time. Versailles was not the cause of WWII. It was actually a rather less punitive treaty than Nazi propaganda would have it and it was not even imposed in full. Have you read it? I would suggest that Germany was not dragged into what became WWI later, like France. It was a prime instigator almost from the start. On 28 June Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. On 29 June the A-H chief-of-staff proposed immediate mobilisation against Serbia. On 1 July the well-connected German publicist Naumann assured the A-H diplomat Hoyos of German support and urged quick action against Serbia. On 2 July the German ambassador assured Franz Joseph of Germany's support in defence of A-H's "vital interests". On 4 July France and Russia advised Serbia and A-H to remain calm. On 5 July Hoyos arrived in Berlin to confirm German intentions. The Kaiser offered German support (the so-called "blank cheque") to A-H. On 6 July the German chancellor assured Hoyos of German support and urged immediate action. On 7 July Hoyos told the Austrian Foreign Ninister and Chief-of-Staff that Germany will back Austria-Hungary even if operations against Serbia bring about "the great war". Germany was there almost from the start. I think both world wars were started by the Austro-German governments of the time deliberately launching what they hoped would be short, localised, victorious wars against much weaker opponents. Although they did not want a wider war, they were prepared to risk it on both occasions. They miscalculated both times and were detroyed. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 16, 2006 08:30 am | ||
yes. Versailles was pretty much a pre-requisite, indeed not the cause. it's not that simple and i'm aware of that. the cause was the invasion of Poland of course. but the Versailles treaty had the aim to damage the economy on a mid-to-long range. the effect was amplified by the great depression which brought popular suport to a radical right wing (that phenomenon is even visible today, albeit on a much smaller scale). about the rest i'll get back when i'm home again. cheers |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 16, 2006 11:37 am |
Hi d-c, I would differentiate between direct causal contributors to events (i.e. Hitler's will) and the infinite number of events that lie along the time-line of events but are not direct causal contributors (i.e. the famous butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon). I would suggest that while Versailles undoubtedly lies on the time-line of event that precede WWII, it need not have led to war. It was Hitler's will that decided that there should be war. Versailles was intended to be economically punitive, but this was inevitable, even reasonable, given the immense material damage done to northern France and Belgium by the German invasion in WWI, while Germany itself had suffered very little material damage by virtue of having fought almost the entire war on foreign soil. What is more, the financial clauses were lifted even before Hitler came to power. Cheers, Sid. |
Posted by: dead-cat June 16, 2006 01:13 pm |
Versailles is definetly more relevant to WW2 than say, a sack of rice tumbling in Pommerania (to use a butterfly-theory comparision, not to make fun of your statement of course). there are indeed a line of more or less relevant events with more or less of an impanct to the start of WW2, whith the most important being those that left post-WW1 problem unsolved in a way that they won't be acceptable on the long run. of course there are scenarios which, being perfectly reasonable, might have led to something diffrent than WW2 (or the way and degree that it happened). one of them being, for example Hitler not surviving in prison and a NSDAP failure at the '33 elections with a less charismatic leader. or for example the USA not withdrawing politically and together with the UK forcing a lifting of the economical aspects of Versailles which might very well have made a victory at the '33 elections of the NSDAP unlikely. by the time Germany stopped paying, 1932, eventhough the sactions were not lifted, the damage was allready done. the reparations crippeled the economy in the 20ies and the reaction posibility to the great depression was close to zero. together with unresolved population issues (placing sudetenland under czech control and various other regios with german majority in Poland, not to speak about austria), french behaviour in saarland and rhineland led to a political and social climate which brought what we know that it brought. |
Posted by: Imperialist June 25, 2006 12:23 pm |
Russia saw fit to start the war over Serbia. Russia ordered general mobilisation and refused to stand down despite German calls to do so. Germany could not have stayed out while 93 russian divisions and 11 serb divisions faced 48 austro-hungarian divisions. |
Posted by: sid guttridge June 25, 2006 08:04 pm |
Hi Imp, Russia ordered a general mobilisation nearly four weeks after members of the Austro-Hungarian and German foreign ministries and general staffs began colluding secretly for A-H to go to war with Serbia with German backing. Indeed, they colluded to keep from the German Kaiser the fact that the Serbs had given in on almost every Austro-Hungarian ultimatum demand until it was too late to stop A-H declaring war. When the Kaiser finally saw the Serb concessions, he thought they were acceptable. Too late! The Russians were certainly part of the chain that turned what might have been the Third Balkan War in three years into a World War, but they weren't the trigger. The responsibility for the outbreak of war lies with a relatively small number of war mongering German and Austro-Hungarian officials. Cheers, Sid. |