German Strategic Thinking: WWI

[richardfinegold]

I know that there are a fair number of History Buffs on this forum and so I am hoping that I might get some feedback on a question that has been perplexing me recently.
I have been reading several tomes in the past year about the Origins of WWI. This wasn't inspired by the fact that the war started 100 years ago, but the additional attention that the anniversary has focused on the question has upped the ante.
The War was such a terrible tragedy, and it happened when the world seemed to be moving much closer to what we now refer to as a Global Economy. Surely understanding the causes of the outbreak must have some implications for us today.
Apart from the causes, I puzzle at the German's desire to pursue an active two front war. Fundamentally their strategy was attack aggressively in Western Europe (violating Belgian neutrality in the process, an action which galvinized British entry into the war and factored significantly in US involvement 3 years later), while holding defensive posture in the East against the Russians.
This seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. It would have been possible to do the exact opposite. Once the hostilities between the Austrians (bent on destroying the Serbs) and the Russians (the protector of the Serbs) commenced, and assuming that Germany and France
felt compelled to honor their respective obligations to their treaty partners, the following strategy makes much more sense to me.

The Germans adopt a defensive posture against the French, stationing an increased troop presences in Alsace-Lorraine as a defensive gesture only. This would coincide with a diplomatic initiative aimed at the French and British stating that Germany had no quarrel or aggressive intent with either country.
Simultaneously, the Germans apply most of their aggressive tendencies towards knocking the Russians out early. It would not be necessary to conquer the entire country. They could have pried Poland and parts of Byelorussia and the Ukraine from the Russian and probably caused the toppling of the government (an outcome they may not have welcomed, given the relationship between the Tsar and the Kaiser). The Russians were very weak, with the Romanov dynasty barely surving the 1904-5 Russo Japanese War. Additionally, Russia was almost paralyzed by Labor Strikes in the years leading up to 1914.
One doubts that the French would have mounted a full scale war on the Western Front to come to the aid of their Russian Treaty Partners, and certainly the English would have remained neutral. Once peace was made with the Russians, the Germans could then afford to do an about face and be aggressive in the West, if they so chose. Or they could consolidate their gains in the East, ensure that the Austrians had dealt with the Serbs, and become the clear dominant World Power.
The world would be a very different place today had they chosen this course. Any thoughts?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IIRC, the eagerness for a two-fronted offensive was held exclusively by the Chief of Staff, von Moltke who (alone) believed that the German Army could quickly win both campaigns and that victory over the allied forces would ensure German dominance in Europe - something that appealed to the Kaiser. Didn't von Moltke actually ignore a command from the Kaiser to halt the advance on France through Belgium?

[richardfinegold]

IIRC, the eagerness for a two-fronted offensive was held exclusively by the Chief of Staff, von Moltke who (alone) believed that the German Army could quickly win both campaigns and that victory over the allied forces would ensure German dominance in Europe - something that appealed to the Kaiser. Didn't von Moltke actually ignore a command from the Kaiser to halt the advance on France through Belgium?

Not sure about that. The Kaiser was mercurial and would issue conflicting directives. per max Hastings, Moltke actually viewed his main role as to block the Kaiser from interfering with military plans, and delegated most of the implementiation of the strategy to subordinates.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not sure about that. The Kaiser was mercurial and would issue conflicting directives. per max Hastings, Moltke actually viewed his main role as to block the Kaiser from interfering with military plans, and delegated most of the implementiation of the strategy to subordinates.

Yes, I think you're right (it's been many years since I studied this) - and it was precisely to prevent the Kaiser from interfering with his pet project of the implementing the von Schlieffen Plan that Moltke ignored the order to redirect troops from the Western offensive and redeploy them to the East.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, I think you're right (it's been many years since I studied this) - and it was precisely to prevent the Kaiser from interfering with his pet project of the implementing the von Schlieffen Plan that Moltke ignored the order to redirect troops from the Western offensive and redeploy them to the East.

Wasn't von Moltke also responsible for personally badgering the Austrian Kaiser to declare war on Serbia? I seem to recall that even the Austrians were amazed that he was such a loose cannon.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Wasn't von Moltke also responsible for personally badgering the Austrian Kaiser to declare war on Serbia? I seem to recall that even the Austrians were amazed that he was such a loose cannon.

I think this is right, Pabs. The volatile mixture of a mercurially paranoid kaiser with a monomaniac chief of staff paid an enormous part in determining how & why things turned out when they did.

[richardfinegold]

I think this is right, Pabs. The volatile mixture of a mercurially paranoid kaiser with a monomaniac chief of staff paid an enormous part in determining how & why things turned out when they did.

After the assisination, the Austrians were determined to eliminate the Serbs, whom they viewed as an existential threat to their Empire. The Austrians needed protection from the Russians, who were the protectors of the Serbs. The Germans were eager to defeat the Franco-Russian Alliance (see Ferneys post) and therefore gave the Austrians a "blank check" to attack the Serbs. Moltke was one of the most vocal in reassuring the Austrians of German support. He also urged them to attack sooner, as they waited a month because most of the Austrian Troops were involved in the Summer Harvest.

[Krystal]

I hope this isn't a dumb question because it's many decades since I studied the Origins of WW1 for matriculation! But, why was the Archduke in Serbia when he was assassinated and why did the Austrians see the Serbs as an "existential threat" to their Empire? I've just read the foregoing to my husband and he has posed the question, actually.

Thanks.

[Tevot]

I hope this isn't a dumb question because it's many decades since I studied the Origins of WW1 for matriculation! But, why was the Archduke in Serbia when he was assassinated and why did the Austrians see the Serbs as an "existential threat" to their Empire? I've just read the foregoing to my husband and he has posed the question, actually.

Thanks.

Hello Krystal,

In brief

The Archduke was inspecting military manoeuvres being held in and around Sarajevo. The Austrians feared the idea of a Greater Serbia (sponsored by Russia) and the impact that this would have on other subject peoples in The Empire - i.e Serbs, Poles, Czechs etc would seek greater autonomy if not indeed independence - the obvious result being the disintegration of The Habsburg Empire. As a result the Austrian Military became increasingly twitchy from 1908/1909 with the Chief of Staff Conrad von Hotzendorf regularly pressing for punitive military measures against Serbia. In 1914 - now confident of Germany's support (the blank cheque) - Hotzendorf finally got what he wanted. The results, as we all know, were cataclysmic.

Hope this helps.

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[Pabmusic]

I hope this isn't a dumb question because it's many decades since I studied the Origins of WW1 for matriculation! But, why was the Archduke in Serbia when he was assassinated and why did the Austrians see the Serbs as an "existential threat" to their Empire? I've just read the foregoing to my husband and he has posed the question, actually.

Thanks.

To answer this fully would probably need a complete thread. The problem was at least a century old. There were two once-powerful, now dying, empires side-by-side. Austria had lost much of its territory in the 19th-century (Northern Italy, for instance) and the rise of nationalism elsewhere (Bohemia, for instance) was strong. Hungary had been so difficult after the disastrous war with Prussia in 1868 that it could only be placated by semi-independence, making the empire Austro-Hungarian rather than Austrian). Had Haydn been born a century later he'd have been on the Hungarian side of the line (and today it's Slovakia!).

Next door was the European portion of the creaking Ottoman Empire. Serbia and Greece had been part of that, but had gained their independence in (about) 1815 and 1833 respectively, although they were surrounded by Austrian (Bosnia, Croatia, Vojvodina, Sandžak) and Ottoman (Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania) lands. You can see how Serbia might become an important player in the region, especially as Russia's interests grew. Do you know Percy French's song "Abdul Abulbul Ameer"? It's about just this political situation. Serbia entered into an alliance with Austria-Hungary, but left them in the early 1900s, favouring Russia. There were many ethnic Serbs in Austro-Hungarian lands and feelings could run high very easily. As they did.

[Edit] Tevot's post tacks rather neatly on to mine to give the up-to-date (well, 1914) picture.

[Krystal]

Thanks very much for that excellent overview! Spheres of influence and colonlization were some major causes.

Speaking of the song Abdul Abulbul Ameer, I found this banned MGM cartoon from the 1930's featuring that song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gt0PRpnShQ

[Pabmusic]

Thanks very much for that excellent overview! Spheres of influence and colonlization were some major causes.

Speaking of the song Abdul Abulbul Ameer, I found this banned MGM cartoon from the 1930's featuring that song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gt0PRpnShQ

I wouldn't say "colonisation" - there's no suggestion that the Austrian, Russian or Ottoman empires 'colonised' anything (well, the Russian empire did, but that was mainly "In the Steppes of Central Asia"). 'Spheres of influence' is a much better term. 'Power' if you like. It's not much different from today, when the USA is being caught up rapidly by China and India, and Europe squabbles.

[Krystal]

I wouldn't say "colonisation" - there's no suggestion that the Austrian, Russian or Ottoman empires 'colonised' anything (well, the Russian empire did, but that was mainly "In the Steppes of Central Asia"). 'Spheres of influence' is a much better term. 'Power' if you like. It's not much different from today, when the USA is being caught up rapidly by China and India, and Europe squabbles.

I'll accept that response as reasonable and likely!! But I see I've derailed the thread a little, and my apologies about that! Cheers. K

[Pabmusic]

I'll accept that response as reasonable and likely!! But I see I've derailed the thread a little, and my apologies about that! Cheers. K

I don't think you have at all, since your question (why did Serbs assassinate Franz Ferdinand and his wife?) was extremely relevant. What led to the local squabble that gave Germany an opening?

[richardfinegold]

Tevot and Pab did an excellent job of answering your question, Krystal. The other major factors that led to the cataclysm were the rivalries of Germany against England, Russia, and France. Each of those rivalries had their own characteristics, and the Alliance of the other 3 Countries was a convergence of their mutual anti German interests.
Which leads me back to my OP. the Germans would have been much better off trying to fight them one at a time, if possible.