World War I

[Silja]

Unfortunately, indifference and incapable are often confused, especially when the result of either is about the same. Nickolas was in large part unaware of the horrible living situation his people were in and had been in for decades. Ignorance can be seen as indifference.


.

I agree. To a large extent it was this isolation of the imperial family that brought them down.
Everyone holding high office in any system is destined to become ultimately isolated from "real life" to some extent. But in autocratic Tsarist Russia the sealing off of those who rule was next to complete.

[bluetoria]

Going back to earlier points, the data suggest that the 'gasoline thrown on the fire' was not the Russian, Serbian, Austrian, German issue in the east and Balkans, but rather the French activity and the English declaration of war prematurely. Had the British held their trigger fingers a few weeks or so after Germany crossed the Belgium frontier, much could have been worked out, especially given the dispositions of William and Nickolas.

Please can you explain more fully what you mean, HerrKaiser? The British didn't enter the war until AFTER Germany & Russia had already done so...so how would their remaining inactive have made a difference? And could/should Britain have remained inactive after the invasion of Belgium? The French, surely, couldn't since the crossing of Belgium had only one purpose - to attack them??
(I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking   )

[HerrKaiser]

thanks for the question. The British declared war on Germany for the Germans crossing the Belgium borders. The Germans had not previously declared war on England. The Belgian territorial "invasion" was surely wrong by nearly every standard, but its intent was not to conquer Belgium, but defend himself from France. Many believe that had England not exerted it miliatry muscle at that point but, instead, pursued a path of trying to mediate the already aggressive actions on the continent (as the German ambassador to London begged for) the hostilies would not have escalated to the disastrous level they did. Basically, to make an analogy, the Germans incited a riot in the stadium, but all the spectators in the stands did not have to pour onto the field, enflame the situation, and fight like crazy people. When an all out riot breaks out, the actual spark may be a focus of issue, but the larger violent reactions are what generally get viewed as more tragic.

[bluetoria]

The British declared war on Germany for the Germans crossing the Belgium borders. The Germans had not previously declared war on England. The Belgian territorial "invasion" was surely wrong by nearly every standard, but its intent was not to conquer Belgium, but defend himself from France. Many believe that had England not exerted it miliatry muscle at that point but, instead, pursued a path of trying to mediate the already aggressive actions on the continent (as the German ambassador to London begged for) the hostilies would not have escalated to the disastrous level they did. Basically, to make an analogy, the Germans incited a riot in the stadium, but all the spectators in the stands did not have to pour onto the field, enflame the situation, and fight like crazy people. When an all out riot breaks out, the actual spark may be a focus of issue, but the larger violent reactions are what generally get viewed as more tragic.

Thank you for answering HerrKaiser! I like your analogy of the stadium riot & think it v. accurate. All the same, I am not sure how Britain could have stood back while the Germans invaded Belgium. Although their intent was not to damage Belgium but to reach France, they had still invaded a neutral company. If a gang of robbers asked to tramp through my garden to attack my neighbout & I refused them access, it wouldn't be enough for them to march straight through & expect me to stand back & let them??
I do think the war could have been avoided through negotiation &, as I wrote before, I think people everywhere were 'spoiling for a fight' but - pacifist that I am! - in the case of invasion of Belgium, some kind of response WAS necessary & by then I think perhaps it was too late for talks - the invasion had begun.  

[HerrKaiser]

Thanks blutoria!   I agree with your points, especially about the true opporutunity to have avoided the war, at least for several weeks/months until the intial flurry of issues had a chance to resolve.
I love your idea of robbers trapzing across your garden! Yes, a tough response would be approprite, but rounding up the neighbors to rush out armed with shot guns and butcher knives would be overkill, yes? In our 21st century view of conflict resolution, a kick in the knees ought not require knocking someone's teeth out in response.
I also agree that regardless of the level of "infraction" the Germans did on Belgian soil, most nations and politicians were itching for a fight. In the east, the mere "mobilization" of troops was a trigger for hostilities. So, each gambled for a fight and fast win, but they all got so involved they had no clue how to back peddle out of the disaster.

[rskkiya]

thanks for the question. The British declared war on Germany for the Germans crossing the Belgium borders. The Germans had not previously declared war on England. The Belgian territorial "invasion" was surely wrong by nearly every standard, but its intent was not to conquer Belgium, but defend himself from France. Many believe that had England not exerted it miliatry muscle at that point but, instead, pursued a path of trying to mediate the already aggressive actions on the continent (as the German ambassador to London begged for) the hostilies would not have escalated to the disastrous level they did. Basically, to make an analogy, the Germans incited a riot in the stadium, but all the spectators in the stands did not have to pour onto the field, enflame the situation, and fight like crazy people. When an all out riot breaks out, the actual spark may be a focus of issue, but the larger violent reactions are what generally get viewed as more tragic.

   The English had an obligation to protect "neutral" Belgium, so I must respectfully disagree with HerrK, although he has made some very insiteful points.
   Sadly Europe had become an imperial powder keg - and I should guess that sooner or later - with all the militaristic posturing and economic pressures from various nations it's not really a matter of "why was there a war" but "why didn't it begin far sooner"!

rskkiya

[bluetoria]

I also agree that regardless of the level of "infraction" the Germans did on Belgian soil, most nations and politicians were itching for a fight. In the east, the mere "mobilization" of troops was a trigger for hostilities. So, each gambled for a fight and fast win, but they all got so involved they had no clue how to back peddle out of the disaster.

Yes, this is the saddest part of all. I agree with what rskkiya wrote, too. It all 'got out of hand' because the build-up had been going on for so long. If only somewhere in the middle of it someone could have said, "Stop!" (but history is sadly full of 'if onlys.')
Still more sad is the realization that all those millions of lives were lost, and still more millions of people bereaved for NOTHING! If WWI achieved anything at all it was only the even greater evil of WWII.
"When will they ever learn....when will they ever learn??"

[HerrKaiser]

Now, that is an interesting idea. What if the war was actually triggered sooner, let's say in the period when Edward was king? Prior to 1914, the arms build up was less, the anger/political posturing had been more of a simmer than boiling point (except for a couple touchy events), and the relationships among the powers was more tolerant. If the Boer War or the Russo-Japanese war escalated to a European war, the re-adjusting of power and imperialism may have taken place with far less cost of lives and property.

[bluetoria]

If the Boer War or the Russo-Japanese war escalated to a European war, the re-adjusting of power and imperialism may have taken place with far less cost of lives and property.

Mm, that IS interesting. The monarchies might also have remained intact, the revolutions never happened & the whole balance of power could have been sorted out more easily. It might have taken place in a different scenario - no trench warfare, no tanks, machine guns - ...Or would it merely have accelerated the invention of new weapons etc.  :-/

[rskkiya]

. If the Boer War or the Russo-Japanese war escalated to a European war, the re-adjusting of power and imperialism may have taken place with far less cost of lives and property.

   
   Well --- no...The tragic inevitability of the Great War lay in all the ironic attempts to make a large scale European war very unlikely - that is, all the entangling treaties, agreements & alliances!
   Had, per example, the Boer War involved most of Europe, then it simply would have been WWI with different slogans...Rather than "Poor Belgium" it might have been "Poor Johannesburg."

rskkiya

[bluetoria]

If the First World War had somehow been avoided, do you think the old 'world order', the monarchies, the class system (which, though it still exists but differently, was to some extent destroyed or changed forever) the patriotism (or rather jingoism) would have changed anyway? Or would the world be more as it was before the war?

[HerrKaiser]

Good question, indeed. And, the question about WWI has been asked about many wars throughout history. Social change/growth (and sometimes negative growth) happens as a result of many things affecting society. Revolutions and wars are sparked because the reasons and need for change exist or existed for quite some time. Progressive and aggressive people and poiliticians have either waited long enough or cannot wait any longer and simply force the issues through violent means. Europe, although under the rule of autocrats, enjoyed a level of personal freedom among the captains of industry that led to massive growth in the average person's wealth, lifestyle, and freedom. Such a large scale expansion of the middle class, tied to higher education as well, would have inevitably resulted in governments far more similar to Britain and the U.S. The so-called class system was based on wealth and when wealth got spread around, the class-system would have been reduced with or without the war, it seems. In spite of the nobility (even today!) pointing their noses in the air, it is money that counts for power. And, the industrial revolution forever changed the rules by which who gets it, and how.

[bluetoria]

If the alleged meeting between Ernie of Hesse (representing the Kaiser) & Nicholas II took place & had been successful in bringing about a separate peace with Russia & Germany, do you believe the war might have ended sooner & would the Revolution have been avoided?
Clearly, the separate peace under the Treaty of Brest Litovsk did not bring any long-term benefit to Germany & did not really shorted the war. But had this taken place prior to the Revolution, & before the spread of anti-monarchical feeling in German would the example set by Russia have, perhaps, persuaded Britain & the other Allies to do the same?
And if this had happened might the thrones of Germany & Russia have survived?

Of course it is pure speculation but so often one small decision or action can alter the whole course of history.
It just seems quite interesting to wonder whether a fruitful meeting between 2 brothers-in-law might have achieved something far better than the outcome of WWI, Versailles & ultimately WWII.

[David_Pritchard]

I have heard of a Czarist train in Estonia that is inside of an underground tunnel which has been closed off by Soviet and later Estonian authorities for safty reasons. I spoke to one young man, a militaria collector, who managed to burrow into this tunnel. He told me that the tunnel was full of decaying WWI Russian military equipment but that it is very unsafe to visit. Has anyone else heard of this train?

On a related note, I have heard that there are very large mega-cannons of the type that shelled Paris in WWI rusting away on a small island off the Estonian coast which the Germans set up as WWI ended on the eastern front. These were evidently menat to shell Kronstadt Island and the environs to the west of Saint Petersburg.

Does anyone have any knowledge of these things?


DAP

[Tsarfan]

The Germans had not previously declared war on England. The Belgian territorial "invasion" was surely wrong by nearly every standard, but its intent was not to conquer Belgium, but defend himself from France.

Given Germany's location in central Europe, Bismarck had built a series of alliances that were designed to prevent Germany from ever having to fight a two-front war.  The alliance did not survive Bismarck's tenure as Chancellor, and Germany instead relied on a military alternative -- known as the Schlieffen Plan -- to deal with the two-front war problem.  It hinged on delivering a massive knock-out blow to France at the outset of hostilities, and it required an attack launced through Belgium to work.

Germany might have pulled it off without broadening the war, but I doubt it.  In actual fact, though, Germany engaged in gratuituous violence while marching through Belgium, including the burning of the library at Liege, which housed one of Europe's most valuable medieval collections.  This conduct ignited so much outrage against Germany that it became hard for opposing governments to fabricate and sell the finely-spun arguments it would have taken to duck their treaty obligations.

If the march through Belgium was a defensive maneuver, then what would you define as an offensive maneuver?

Basically, to make an analogy, the Germans incited a riot in the stadium, but all the spectators in the stands did not have to pour onto the field, enflame the situation, and fight like crazy people.

If you want to analogize Germany's attack to inciting a riot in a stadium, you have to remember this particular riot was not a frenzy of team spirit gone wild.  It was calculated from the outset to eliminate some of the other attendees (the French).