Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Causes of Great War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Schlieffen did not defend the temporary occupation of East Prussia :he would admit a loss of territory in the east,which is totally different .

    And,about Tuchman:I expected you would use her :she was throwed under the bus,the moment her book was published :it was only a paper version of a WWII Hollywood propaganda film .

    And,BTW:she is wrong :Moltke accepted the loss of territory in the east,as was advocated by Schlieffen .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by peterhof View Post
      It gets worse. Schlieffen actually advocated that the temporary occupation of East Prussia by the Russians should be allowed if absolutely unavoidable. This again points up the sheer desperation of the Schlieffen Plan. It also points up Moltke's lack of the required boldness by his own admission that "I lack the capacity to risk all on a single throw." (cited by Tuchman)
      I'm surprised you rely on Tuchman, given what S.B. Fay said about her book.
      As Sam Williamson tells the story, he visited Fay when he (Williamson) was a young man. By that time, Fay was already old and blind and Fay's daughter had just finished reading Guns of August to him. When Williamson asked Fay what he thought of it, Fay's response was "I don't agree with much of what she writes, but if historians don't learn to write like how she writes, we'll be out of business."

      Williamson makes these remarks during the podcast he did at the Wilson Center last year. I've posted the link before, but here it is again.
      http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ju...erman-paradigm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
        I'm surprised you rely on Tuchman, given what S.B. Fay said about her book.
        As Sam Williamson tells the story, he visited Fay when he (Williamson) was a young man. By that time, Fay was already old and blind and Fay's daughter had just finished reading Guns of August to him. When Williamson asked Fay what he thought of it, Fay's response was "I don't agree with much of what she writes, but if historians don't learn to write like how she writes, we'll be out of business."

        Williamson makes these remarks during the podcast he did at the Wilson Center last year. I've posted the link before, but here it is again.
        http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ju...erman-paradigm
        I have just finished listening to the entire address - including questions and answers - by Williamson. It was fascinating to see how the consensus on war guilt continues to evolve in Germany's favor. The discussion was just as interesting on account of the issues and personalities not mentioned, though ninety minutes would necessarily limit the scope. This was very interesting. Thank you for the link. Hopefully everyone will take the time to listen.

        As for Tuchman, I have always believed that her work was marred by an obsessive anti-Germanism. On the other hand, it is hard to ignore an effort which received the Pulitzer prize.
        "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

        Comment


        • Here we have some evidence from a French historian, no less. Mathias Morhard:
          4º) 'Le ordre du mobilization generale russe du 29 julliet a eté annulée dans la soirée de ce jour par le Nicolas II lui meme.. des demarches ont était present devant lui le lendemain, 30 juillet, de l´aveu concordant de Maurice Paleologue et le General Dobrorolski.

          D´apres le recit de Maurice Paléologue le Czar Nicolas II cést defendu: Songez la responsabilité que vous me donnez de prendre. Il ságit de envoyer des milliers et des milliers d´hommes a sa mort.

          Any further question who was promoting war before and during 1914? This can be easily translated
          When looking for the reason why things go wrong, never rule out stupidity, Murphy's Law Nº 8
          Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana
          "Ach du schwein" a German parrot captured at Bukoba GEA the only prisoner taken

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nickuru View Post
            Here we have some evidence from a French historian, no less. Mathias Morhard:
            4º) 'Le ordre du mobilization generale russe du 29 julliet a eté annulée dans la soirée de ce jour par le Nicolas II lui meme.. des demarches ont était present devant lui le lendemain, 30 juillet, de l´aveu concordant de Maurice Paleologue et le General Dobrorolski.

            D´apres le recit de Maurice Paléologue le Czar Nicolas II cést defendu: Songez la responsabilité que vous me donnez de prendre. Il ságit de envoyer des milliers et des milliers d´hommes a sa mort.

            Any further question who was promoting war before and during 1914? This can be easily translated
            Je ne parle pas Francais. (I don't speak French) Could you please translate? Thanks.
            "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              That is very questionable....
              If it were "very questionable", then why did you not think to pose the question even to yourself before coming to the conclusion that losing the war to the US and Britain in 1918 would be worse for Germany than losing it to Russia and France in 1915?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
                .

                This statement requires two things to be true -

                First, that British neutrality was otherwise going to occur.
                Second, that British intervention meant automatically the defeat of Germany, (and not Britain).
                O.K.

                Firstly, whether Britain would have entered the war later in support of France can only be speculation. Surely, the point was that the invasion of Belgium certainly settled the issue for British- and world- public opinion. Men would scarcely have flocked to the Colours for such arcane concepts such as "Balance of Power" or to honour the Entente.

                Secondly; Was Germany defeated ? Would Germany have been defeated without the participation of the British Empire ?
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                  So the German General Staff had no plan other than defend like b*st*rds and hope the Russians offensive plans are disrupted by the geography of East Prussia. They are so lucky that gamble paid off. It also shows the complete paucity of ideas in the GGS.
                  You simple ignore what I stated. You even succeeded in ignoring that East Prussia would temporarily be abandoned(except Königsberg) if necesssary.
                  And the russian army does not only move over East Prussia.
                  All possible scenario's had been played out and the german army would never remain on a passive defense.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                    It gets worse. Schlieffen actually advocated that the temporary occupation of East Prussia by the Russians should be allowed if absolutely unavoidable. This again points up the sheer desperation of the Schlieffen Plan. It also points up Moltke's lack of the required boldness by his own admission that "I lack the capacity to risk all on a single throw." (cited by Tuchman)
                    Desperation is not the correct word.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

                      Firstly, whether Britain would have entered the war later in support of France can only be speculation.
                      That is absolutely true. You are correct. Much like that if you douse yourself in gasoline and throw yourself in a live volcano, it is speculation that the end result will not be a free trip to Disneyland.

                      Surely, the point was that the invasion of Belgium certainly settled the issue for British- and world- public opinion.
                      No, the point was that it is speculation to think British neutrality was otherwise going to occur, because British neutrality was not in the cards, under any circumstances, after France went in.

                      Men would scarcely have flocked to the Colours for such arcane concepts such as "Balance of Power" or to honour the Entente.
                      I think that, if you casually peruse the history of Britain's wars, that most of them didn't require the violation of Belgium for the British people to fight them...

                      Secondly; Was Germany defeated ?
                      Yes.

                      Would Germany have been defeated without the participation of the British Empire?
                      A question irrelevant to the original discussion. The participation of the British Empire did not make the defeat of Germany inevitable; Britain had bitten off more than it could chew and was lucky to escape its own defeat.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tigerivan View Post
                        You simple ignore what I stated. You even succeeded in ignoring that East Prussia would temporarily be abandoned(except Königsberg) if necesssary.
                        And the russian army does not only move over East Prussia.
                        All possible scenario's had been played out and the german army would never remain on a passive defense.
                        Ha. You point to a number of partially completed contingency plans. But there is nothing present to indicate what the bulk of the army will do once the French have been defeated - the obvious follow on from the Schlieffen plan.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                          Ha. You point to a number of partially completed contingency plans. But there is nothing present to indicate what the bulk of the army will do once the French have been defeated - the obvious follow on from the Schlieffen plan.
                          The plan called for major transfers to the eastern front around week 8 or so, to exploit the defeat of the French army (and its inability to counterattack) by using interior lines to turn and defeat the Russians.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                            Ha. You point to a number of partially completed contingency plans. But there is nothing present to indicate what the bulk of the army will do once the French have been defeated - the obvious follow on from the Schlieffen plan.
                            I do not point out contingency plans. I read the solutions that german officers gave to particular situations during staff rides. These are an indication of what they would do in reality.
                            Against the russian army there would be attempts at inflicting defeats as occasions presented themselves using the same basic operational priciples as in the west.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
                              That is absolutely true. You are correct. Much like that if you douse yourself in gasoline and throw yourself in a live volcano, it is speculation that the end result will not be a free trip to Disneyland.



                              No, the point was that it is speculation to think British neutrality was otherwise going to occur, because British neutrality was not in the cards, under any circumstances, after France went in.



                              I think that, if you casually peruse the history of Britain's wars, that most of them didn't require the violation of Belgium for the British people to fight them...



                              Yes.



                              A question irrelevant to the original discussion. The participation of the British Empire did not make the defeat of Germany inevitable; Britain had bitten off more than it could chew and was lucky to escape its own defeat.
                              There's a weird metaphor:- I take it you believe that Britain would have gone to war even if Belgian neutrality had not been violated. Perhaps ,but ,given the political situation,you certainly cannot say for certain:- visit Disneyland a lot then, do you ?

                              The point that I was labouring over regarding the invasion of Belgium is that it raised the entire situation up to another level. Prior to the German attack the whole July crises could have been written off by most people as just another Great Power spat- yet another obscure Balkan squabble. But the invasion was a total game-changer. It could be vividly portrayed as a bullying power picking on an small, innocent nation. (Yes- Peter will tell it differently but, in essence, that's what it was ).

                              Of course WW1 was a near-run thing- as, indeed was WW2- but how can you possibly say that the entry of the British Empire was irrelevant to the result ? Was Britain defeated- or are you in denial ?
                              Last edited by BELGRAVE; 31 Jan 13, 22:20.
                              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                              Samuel Johnson.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                                Je ne parle pas Francais. (I don't speak French) Could you please translate? Thanks.
                                4º The order for general mobilization of 29th of July was cancelled by order of the Nicholas II himself durng the afternoon. Questions were placed to the Czar on the morrow of 30th July by Maurice Paleologue and General Dobrorolsky explaining their agreement (personal aside: why is an ambassador making foreign policy for a country?).

                                After the recital of Maurice Paleologue, the Czar spoke as follows "Think of the responsibility which you are demanding. It involves sending thousand and thousands of men to their deaths.

                                Sadly Paleologue had the Russian establishment at his grasp.
                                When looking for the reason why things go wrong, never rule out stupidity, Murphy's Law Nº 8
                                Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana
                                "Ach du schwein" a German parrot captured at Bukoba GEA the only prisoner taken

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X