German Strategic Thinking: WWI

[BBMmk2]

Thank you very much indeed boarders, for this most illuminating thread I have read in a long while. I was all that sure about the surrounding activities or events, that were connected with the start of WW!, so it has given me a better insight

RFG, what's the details of that book your reading please

[richardfinegold]

Thank you very much indeed boarders, for this most illuminating thread I have read in a long while. I was all that sure about the surrounding activities or events, that were connected with the start of WW!, so it has given me a better insight

RFG, what's the details of that book your reading please

The Book is by Max Hastings. He is a best selling Historian who until now has written primarily about WWII. It is called 'Catastrophie: 1914'. The first part is about the build up to the war. It is pretty concise but an excellent summary.
I also read a book that is anything but concise, but filled with fascinating detail about many of the personalities at the Upper echelons in many of the involved countries. It is by Robert Massie (who is more famous for biographies of Peter The Great and Nicholas and Alexandria) and is called Dreadnaught. It is actually several books in one; several hundred pages on the English, Russians, Germans and the French each.
Another book that I recently read is by Mischa Glenny called The Balkans. Quite a bit about the history of Serbia there.

[HighlandDougie]

A very good recent book on the genesis of WW1 is, "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914", by Christopher Clark (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleepwalkers...to+war+in+1914). While it's rather more scholarly than, say, Max Hastings, it is very well-written. The word, "magisterial", comes to mind. Think Bernard Haitink writing a book about the First World War.

[richardfinegold]

A very good recent book on the genesis of WW1 is, "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914", by Christopher Clark (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleepwalkers...to+war+in+1914). While it's rather more scholarly than, say, Max Hastings, it is very well-written. The word, "magisterial", comes to mind. Think Bernard Haitink writing a book about the First World War.

And Hastings would be...Malcolm Sargent?

[HighlandDougie]

Um, yes ..... a pretty good analogy. Forgive the academic (and musical) snobbery .....

[Petrushka]

I haven't read this book yet - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mad-Catastro...absburg+empire - but the author lays the blame for the First World War at the door of Vienna and the reckless policies of the collapsing Habsburg Empire.

Has anyone read this? It looks an intriguing book especially as I am so interested in Vienna in that period and it's on my wish list.

[richardfinegold]

I haven't read this book yet - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mad-Catastro...absburg+empire - but the author lays the blame for the First World War at the door of Vienna and the reckless policies of the collapsing Habsburg Empire.

Has anyone read this? It looks an intriguing book especially as I am so interested in Vienna in that period and it's on my wish list.

It looks interesting, but no I haven't read it.
From what I've read, the Germans and Rssians deserve at least as much of the blame.

[aeolium]

I haven't read this book yet - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mad-Catastro...absburg+empire - but the author lays the blame for the First World War at the door of Vienna and the reckless policies of the collapsing Habsburg Empire.

Has anyone read this? It looks an intriguing book especially as I am so interested in Vienna in that period and it's on my wish list.

The book looks an interesting one, though I think the author's thesis would not be one shared by Christopher Clark. In the latter's Sleepwalkers, he devotes a fair amount of analysis to the history of the Dual Monarchy leading up to the war. Clark claims that it was true that it was a contracting and weaker empire since its military defeats in the mid-C19, but it was still seen by contemporaries as a well-ordered society with relatively good political and cultural freedom and significant economic growth. The major difficulties it faced especially in the first decade of the C20 were the rise of Serbian nationalism and irredentism and Russian support for this. Austria-Hungary has been blamed for destablising the Balkans with the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 but this was merely an implementation of an article in the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 under which the Habsburgs were given the right to administer B-H - and it was, according to Clark, with the full knowledge and agreement of Russia. And the Austrians were blamed for overreacting to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but can one imagine the reaction of any of the other Great Powers if an heir to the throne had been assassinated by fanatics who were nationals of a small hostile neighbour and where the government of that neighbour was suspected of knowledge and tacit support of the fanatics?

[richardfinegold]

The book looks an interesting one, though I think the author's thesis would not be one shared by Christopher Clark. In the latter's Sleepwalkers, he devotes a fair amount of analysis to the history of the Dual Monarchy leading up to the war. Clark claims that it was true that it was a contracting and weaker empire since its military defeats in the mid-C19, but it was still seen by contemporaries as a well-ordered society with relatively good political and cultural freedom and significant economic growth. The major difficulties it faced especially in the first decade of the C20 were the rise of Serbian nationalism and irredentism and Russian support for this. Austria-Hungary has been blamed for destablising the Balkans with the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 but this was merely an implementation of an article in the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 under which the Habsburgs were given the right to administer B-H - and it was, according to Clark, with the full knowledge and agreement of Russia. And the Austrians were blamed for overreacting to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but can one imagine the reaction of any of the other Great Powers if an heir to the throne had been assassinated by fanatics who were nationals of a small hostile neighbour and where the government of that neighbour was suspected of knowledge and tacit support of the fanatics?

Austria had to react to the assassination . To let such a provocation go un punished would have completely undermined their status as a Great Power.
The problem was containing the dispute. The Russians backed the Serbs and had an anti German Alliance with the French.
AH was not powerful enough to take on Serbia, the Russians, and the French. Thus their reliance on Germany. The Germans had an interest in keeping the Hapsberg Empire intact as an Ally.
My OP was questioning the strategy of the Germans. They welcomed a two front war. They assumed a defensive posture against the Russians and wanted to inade and defeat France and keep England neutral. They would have been much better off doing the opposite. If they remained in a defensive posture against the French and aggressively attacked the Russians, England would have probably remained neutral, the Romonov dynasty would have collapsed with Poland and large tracts of Russia becoming German, and the Serbs could have been dealt with.

[aeolium]

My OP was questioning the strategy of the Germans. They welcomed a two front war. They assumed a defensive posture against the Russians and wanted to inade and defeat France and keep England neutral. They would have been much better off doing the opposite. If they remained in a defensive posture against the French and aggressively attacked the Russians, England would have probably remained neutral, the Romonov dynasty would have collapsed with Poland and large tracts of Russia becoming German, and the Serbs could have been dealt with.

But France would not have remained neutral in such a war - Poincaré had already committed to support Russia in the event of a European war arising out of the Balkan situation, as early as 1912. And if France had become involved, would Britain have remained on the sidelines? It's true that as it turned out it was the violation of Belgian neutrality that brought Britain into the war but there was already a defensive alliance with both France and Russia, and in the explosive atmosphere which would have followed the outbreak of war on the continent it would have been very difficult for the relatively weak British government to remain aloof (with pressure from the opposition, press and national demonstrations). The curious factor for me is why Russia committed so strongly to supporting the volatile Serbs who had their own expansionist ambitions, had deposed and assassinated their own royalty in 1903 and in June 1914 assassinated the heir to another monarchy - why did the Tsar who was so hostile to revolutionary activity think that these were acceptable allies, sufficiently important to fight a war over?

[pilamenon]

The curious factor for me is why Russia committed so strongly to supporting the volatile Serbs who had their own expansionist ambitions, had deposed and assassinated their own royalty in 1903 and in June 1914 assassinated the heir to another monarchy - why did the Tsar who was so hostile to revolutionary activity think that these were acceptable allies, sufficiently important to fight a war over?

Wouldn't it be similar pressure to the sort you describe the British government facing in 1914? I've always been led to believe Nicholas himself was reluctant to get involved; that he was naturally cautious, still bearing the recent scar of the Japanese humiliation and fearful of another calamity, as well as agonising over his family ties to the Germans. However, factors determining Russian support for Serbia might include their perceived weak response to the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, and their desire to curb increased Austrian hegemony in an area of potential strategic interest, not to mention ethnic, religious, cultural ties with their Slav neighbours, all of which would surely have boosted the jingoistic mood in Russia in 1914.

[richardfinegold]

[QUOTE=aeolium;416554]But France would not have remained neutral in such a war - Poincaré had already committed to support Russia in the event of a European war arising out of the Balkan situation, as early as 1912. And if France had become involved, would Britain have remained on the sidelines? It's true that as it turned out it was the violation of Belgian neutrality that brought Britain into the war but there was already a defensive alliance with both France and Russia, and in the explosive atmosphere which would have followed the outbreak of war on the continent it would have been very difficult for the relatively weak British government to remain aloof (with pressure from the opposition, press and national demonstrations). The curious factor for me is why Russia committed so strongly to supporting the volatile Serbs who had their own expansionist ambitions, had deposed and assassinated their own royalty in 1903 and in June 1914 assassinated the heir to another monarchy - why did the Tsar who was so hostile to revolutionary activity think that these were acceptable allies, sufficiently important to fight a war over?[/

I agree with your first point. The French would have felt obliged to attack Germany to satisfy their treaty obligations to the Russians. My point is that the Germans could have bogged them down in a protracted conflict in Alsace Lorraine. The French Military would not have been capable of executing any offensive as ambitious as the Von Schliefen plan. By not violating Belgian Neutrality, the Germans would have kept the English neutral. Such a protracted conflict would become un popular with the French People, particularly the Socialists. By the time the Russians were finished off, the French would be war weary and ready for peace. If not, the Germans could have attacked them with all their might.
Even if Germany had to cede some of their gains of 1870 in A-L to the French they would have gained Poland and large parts of Ukraine. They could have made a Peace Settlement with the French and had the option of attacking them at a later time.

[richardfinegold]

Wouldn't it be similar pressure to the sort you describe the British government facing in 1914? I've always been led to believe Nicholas himself was reluctant to get involved; that he was naturally cautious, still bearing the recent scar of the Japanese humiliation and fearful of another calamity, as well as agonising over his family ties to the Germans. However, factors determining Russian support for Serbia might include their perceived weak response to the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, and their desire to curb increased Austrian hegemony in an area of potential strategic interest, not to mention ethnic, religious, cultural ties with their Slav neighbours, all of which would surely have boosted the jingoistic mood in Russia in 1914.

In my recent readings on the origins of WW I, I'm starting to realize how much of the jingoism was a response to Socialism.
Labor unrest and Trade Unionism were very prominent in Russia, France , Germany and England. All countries had to get the cooperation of their Socialists to forgo International Solidarity of the working classes and hoist the banner of Nationalism. Many of the ruling classes of all the major players welcomed the war as a way to rally their compatriots and preserve the existing Social Order. They failed miserably in this endeavor and at a horrible cost.

[aeolium]

By not violating Belgian Neutrality, the Germans would have kept the English neutral.

I agree with most of what you have written in your post above, but on this particular point I think we may disagree. I think it would have been extremely difficult for the government to keep Britain neutral (and some within it, like Churchill, were in any case fiercely belligerent) once Germany was at war with the British allies France and Russia. The climate of public opinion in Britain, already anti-German, would have been whipped up to fever-pitch. And, in the unlikely event of Britain remaining neutral, the British government would have been especially concerned at an over-mighty Germany in the heart of Europe had Russia been comprehensively defeated and the French weakened. Would it have stood aside as Germany became the wholly dominant power in Europe - I doubt it?

[richardfinegold]

I agree with most of what you have written in your post above, but on this particular point I think we may disagree. I think it would have been extremely difficult for the government to keep Britain neutral (and some within it, like Churchill, were in any case fiercely belligerent) once Germany was at war with the British allies France and Russia. The climate of public opinion in Britain, already anti-German, would have been whipped up to fever-pitch. And, in the unlikely event of Britain remaining neutral, the British government would have been especially concerned at an over-mighty Germany in the heart of Europe had Russia been comprehensively defeated and the French weakened. Would it have stood aside as Germany became the wholly dominant power in Europe - I doubt it?

Hastings and others think that while the sentiment of many in the Cabinet was for war, the British Public, would not have
Supported it. The Belgian invasion galvanized Popular Sentiment against the Germans. Up until the eve of the War, the main preoccupation in England was the issue of Irish Home Rule.