Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Inventing the Schlieffen Plan


Dikke Bertha

Recommended Posts

Carl

I know that this is slightly off-topic, but to save me a lot of searching which histories state that their regiments were provided with extra funds for the purpose of paying their way in Belgium?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a woman who was born in 1913 in Germany. Because of the blockade, she got rickets as a child. She was in constant pain. She lived to be 90. Starve all those women and children. Well, its better than incinerating them in their bomb shelters. I'm no bleeding-heart liberal: I'm an airborne infantry officer, as nasty as they get. I only mention this because you have such high regard for the moral importance of the 1839 Belgian neutrality treaty.

Terence Zuber

Well, coming from a unit that is nastier than they get... let me ask a bewildered question...

Are you saying Germany was entitled to punish the Serbs by invading the Belgians?? I know there are current modern equivelents, but I have never really been a fan of them.

As far as the 90 year old with Rickets.... puleese... using that logic you can say "Saddam should have/ could have supported the 9/11 bombers because children were dying in his country due to the Blockade" ?

It is a sad truth that Apologists for the Nazis in WW2 and those trying to shift the blame for WW1 often use a terrible double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without labouring the point... I think avoiding the Mons thread is a cop out.

Members have brought some valid and very concrete arguments.

Schlieffen is a very abstract Theme and will be as long as noone finds the smoking gun... anyone can add their 2c and not be proved wrong.... but Mons has some objective and not to be denied errors.

I am dissapointed that you do not feel the need to answer the critiques.

Best

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been away for a week so just catching up !

One thing that concerns me is the insinuation that the blockade was the sole cause of malnutrition in the German civillian population.

For example

As far as the 90 year old with Rickets....

Ricketts is usually caused by a lack of calcium or Vitamin D How did the blockade stop cows etc eating the grass to produce dairy prpoducts the main source of calcium in the diet . Also, how was the blockade was in some way causing a lack of sunshine, the main source of Vitami D for humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one I saw had a bunch of posts from 2010, particularly from a "JoeRookery" (?) who expected me to write a detailed monograph on German tactical, operational and strategic doctrine of the three combat arms going back to 1877 or something. I think he's a former War College guy (instructor?), which would explain a lot.

Terrence,

Hi, I am the offending guy or the guilty party. I am not a professional academic just a collector with an interest in the subject. I have eagerly read and awaited your books. I like the premise of the book under discussion and have said so publicly as well as in this thread. I did not like the books on the Mons and Ardennes. I'm really seriously applauding you for even bringing up the subject in the English language. I think that makes you some sort of pioneer and makes your assertions open to some scrutiny. Personally I do not understand your approach in these books. That is the value of asking questions in this type of forum. What a great spree it has been having you here answering questions.

I do not think that I asked for a detailed monograph. I do not think 1877 is an overly pertinent date. I do not know what my affiliation with the War College could explain but I would be interested to know. I would very much like to see you take the same approach as this thread in the one on Mons. We have all gained tremendously from your participation. Thank you for that. I was not intending to insult only to discuss doctrine. If I offended anybody I apologize. Please engage on the Mons thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been away for a week so just catching up !

One thing that concerns me is the insinuation that the blockade was the sole cause of malnutrition in the German civillian population.

For example

As far as the 90 year old with Rickets....

Ricketts is usually caused by a lack of calcium or Vitamin D How did the blockade stop cows etc eating the grass to produce dairy prpoducts the main source of calcium in the diet . Also, how was the blockade was in some way causing a lack of sunshine, the main source of Vitami D for humans.

The blockade prevented the Germans from importing fertilizer from South America. No fertilizer and yields go way down, including feedstock for animals.

Terence Zuber

Carl

I know that this is slightly off-topic, but to save me a lot of searching which histories state that their regiments were provided with extra funds for the purpose of paying their way in Belgium?

Jack

Practically all the cavalry regiments. I mention several in Mons

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, coming from a unit that is nastier than they get... let me ask a bewildered question...

Are you saying Germany was entitled to punish the Serbs by invading the Belgians?? I know there are current modern equivelents, but I have never really been a fan of them.

As far as the 90 year old with Rickets.... puleese... using that logic you can say "Saddam should have/ could have supported the 9/11 bombers because children were dying in his country due to the Blockade" ?

It is a sad truth that Apologists for the Nazis in WW2 and those trying to shift the blame for WW1 often use a terrible double standard.

I am saying - quite clearly - that the war started because the head of Serb intelligence assassinated the heir apparent of Austria. Gee, why do you think he would do that? No idea?

Wouldn't it seem to follow that the Austrians would be unhappy, as in, attack Serbia?

The President and Prime Minister of France are in St. Petersburg 20-23 August. We have no record of their discussions with the Russians, so they probably weren't talking about the World Cup.

On 31 August, the Russians declare general mobilization - against Germany as well as Austria. Mobilization means war. Mobilization means that the French and Russia are going to invade Germany in 15 days.

Everything else logically follows.

What do the Nazis have to do with this?

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terence,

I am a bit surprised that you say that the Austrians were within their rights to bomb Belgrade and that Serbia sponsored the

assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne.My understanding has always been that there were never any links proved

to the Serbian government even by the Austrians themselves in their own investigations.

I'm aware of Apis and the links to the Serbian army etc but that hardly implies full Serbian government knowledge,not to mention

that killing the Austrian heir would hardly be a good thing for the Serbian government.

Best/Liam

Liam,

The Austrians demanded an investigation. The Serbs refused because they knew what it would find.

Apis' "links to the Serbian army" !. He was the head of Serb intelligence. The weapons used came from Serb army stocks.

The idea that the Russians, French and British were completely baffled as to the cause of the assassination is hardly credible.

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ou

Everybody knew who Apis was.

And in 1914 nobody had anything to suggest he was involved until the war was well under way.

The French and Russians were real good at "plausible deniability" (as in, there are no minutes of the French-Russian discussions at the highest levels in St. Petersburg 20-23 August - fancy that).

Rather like Berchtold's diary being entirely empty for the week following the assassination then really.

But there is every indication that the Russian military attache to Serbia knew exactly what Apis was up to. And didn't stop it.

Apis said Artamanov didnt know what the money he gave Apis was used for, so that part is at best dubious. There has never been anything to suggest Russia knew of the plan let alone agreed with it.

It is inconsistent to be morally outraged about Belgium and blase about the fact that the Serbs perpitrated a calculated act of terrorism - calculated to start a great war.

Saying the assassination did not need a war to resolve it and pointing out Germany acted badly towards Belgium are hardly the similar. Pointing out that Germany should not have attacked Belgium is not moral outrage, it is pointing out the massive stigma it caused for Germany.

The British method of avoiding interational law was merely to have nothing to do with it - the blockade of Germany was illegal, but the British never signed the law, so starve all those women and children.

It cannot be illegal if the law was not ratified. The German U-boat blockade of Britain was designed to do exactly the same thing, it is absurd to try and suggest only one side transgressed.

I only mention this because you have such high regard for the moral importance of the 1839 Belgian neutrality treaty.

Presumably treaties are supposed to have some purpose, and are not simply a scrap of paper to be disregarded as soon as it suits? Saying Germany was wrong is not showing high regard for the treaty, it is pointing out that Germany disregarded a treaty she had agreed to.

Belgrade was 'bombarded' by a river monitor and, as I rememer, some field artillery. Negligible damage.

I agree. The puropse of the bombardment was to stop all attempts at a peaceful settlement though. Negligable damage at first, almost 20 million dead as a result.

And inflicted nothing like the horrors the Serbian people were going to suffer in the war the Serbian government started.

I would love to see you or anyone else post actual proof that the assassination was a government policy and not the act of an officer acting outside his instructions from the government. After all, that would probably creat very big headlines as it has never been proven yet. I seem to recall that the declaration of war was Austrian and not Serbian.

The point being here that the Russians had two weeks at the minimum to conduct negotiations - and the Kaiser was screaming "Stop in Belgrade" at the top of his lungs.

Berchtold ignored the Kaiser, or rather Bethmann though and insisted the war continue, the very act that caused Russia to mobilize. If Austria had not gone to war, Russia would not have mobilized, it was all a giant knock on effect.

Jagow wanted the Austrians to punish the Serbs in a localized war. This was the whole point of German policy - I'm surprised I have to mention it.

I am surprised that anyone who has studied the situation in 1914 could ever conclude that the localized war was at all possible, even Franz'Joseph got the outcome perfectly correct when he saw the final draft of the Note 'Russia will never accept this! There will be a really big war!' it simply was not possible due to the international tensions. Such a policy was delusional, and rather predictably a localized war did 'set fire to the map of Europe' as Sazonov pointed out the Austrian actions would do.

Everybody knew who Apis was.

And in 1914 nobody had anything to suggest he was involved until the war was well under way.

Come on. The Austrians demanded an investigation. They knew what they would find.

But there is every indication that the Russian military attache to Serbia knew exactly what Apis was up to. And didn't stop it.

Apis said Artamanov didnt know what the money he gave Apis was used for, so that part is at best dubious. There has never been anything to suggest Russia knew of the plan let alone agreed with it.

And after the fact the Russians would have been shocked, just shocked, to think that Apis had organized the assassination.

And inflicted nothing like the horrors the Serbian people were going to suffer in the war the Serbian government started.

I would love to see you or anyone else post actual proof that the assassination was a government policy and not the act of an officer acting outside his instructions from the government. After all, that would probably creat very big headlines as it has never been proven yet. I seem to recall that the declaration of war was Austrian and not Serbian.

Apis was not an 'officer', he was the head of Serb security. If he was a loose cannon, then a responsible government would have removed and punished him. Instead, the Serb government protected him.

The Serb government was in the wrong. It owed the Austrians the gravest apology, full cooperation and compensation. The Russians owed the Austrians full support in punishing an act of murder and terrorism by their rogue client state. Instead, they declared general mobilization.

The assassination was a calculated outrage. What were the Austrians supposed to do?

The point being here that the Russians had two weeks at the minimum to conduct negotiations

You missed this part. There was no reason for the Russians to mobilize - unless they wanted to get the war going.

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

I asked you to the forum, so it pains me to say it, but you could be a bit more cautious with your pot shots at other members. I know you have written a great many books, but that doesn't give you free and particular license to be unkind. Joe, for example is a well established member here who happens to also be a great guy and has written a very useful book on Germany and the German Army.

Paul

This sin't the right thread, but in reply to your comment:

To quote Joe Rookery

"Of course I am also biased however I would highly recommend anybody interested in this subject read appendix D. of the Handbook of Imperial Germany. This covers the development of tactics and doctrine as well as equipment in the German army from the Franco Prussian war to the start of World War I. It is heavily footnoted to the original sources and will give you a significantly different view of development than you receive from Zuber...The other one is that the sources used do not trace development and therefore are taken in many cases out of context. While appendix D. does not cover the detail of this book there are whole concepts of German marksmanship training and German marksmanship that are just ignored."

These negative comments are so general that I have no idea where to begin, except, as I said, that Mr. Rookery expected a monograph on German training and doctrine going back to the 1870s.

Again, Mr. Rookery, former War College type:

"I do not accept his premise about operational and strategic warfare and I think it is one thing that really limits understanding in the book.... Ireally get the impression that the training approach is done with the mindset of a former company commander."

Guilty as charged. 38 months company command in the 3rd Infantry Division. Before that platoon leader three times (two mortar, one rifle). After that 3rd Division Headquarters Commandant for another three years. Dirty boots. A real Frontschwein.

But since we're going ad hominem I was also VII Corps liaison officer to the 12th German Panzer Division and for three years was involved in division/corps operations, including the Nato General Defense Plan that covered all of Bavaria. I had hands-on experience of operations gained from some really superb German General Staff officers. So I don't think I'm just a dumb grunt.

Terence Zuber

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a couple or more other questions on that thread. I would be dissapointed if that was enough to keep you away from it... Even the 1914 French Infantry would have attacked with relish...

best

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grey is not saying that Britain could not pledge neutrality on the basis of a French invasion of Belgium...

Cheers-salesie.

Yes Salesie, Grey is saying precisely that; Britain will not promise neutrality to Germany under any condition; including one where France invaded Belgium. Her hands must remain free to act no matter what France or Germany does, and no matter how France or Germany answers any questions he might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh dear, some people seem to be a bit grumpy

re Belgian neutrality in 1870. Germany under Bismarck issued a statement that German troops would enter Belgium if French troops entered Belgium and were not opposed by the Belgian army. So first the French would invade.

from where comes the statement that Moltke was certain that Belgium would ally with France. If so why did he (the ultimatum to Belgium was worded by Moltke) only ask for free passage through Belgium and offer to pay for all expenses by the German army. This is supported by the ever popular German regimental histories :closedeyes: who claim that they were issued with extra coins to pay.

Carl

What Belgium would or would not have done is an open question - the only thing we know so far is that her behaviour towards various proposals prior to the war was correct, and that during the crisis she violated the treaty of 1839 only once. What seems improbable to the extreme is that Belgium would have ever willingly gone to war with Great Britain.

Note that a French invasion of Belgium remains deep in the southern forests where Belgium held little forces and no fortifications. The German invasion went through her major population centers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

salesie, on 30 September 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

This doesn't "prove" your point about mutual exclusivity - it simply proves that you are prone to increasingly desperate flights of fantasy. Not only is your analogy with 1939/40 factually incorrect (the main German attack in 1940 came across the common Franco/German border, with a feint through Belgium), but it also puts the supposed defeat of Russia in 1914 on a par with the defeat of Poland in 1939, which is so ludicrous a comparison it defies any sort of reasoned response in a serious debate.

What next, if Sauron hadn't sent the Ringwraiths across the border into the Shire, he could have had an easy victory in Mordor before sending his massed Orks sweeping like a tidal-wave through the Shire to capture the whole of Middle-Earth?

Cheers-salesie.

Ok, Mr. Zuber has given the outline of the military situation assuming Belgian neutrality holds for the duration of 1914.

From August to October 1914 the Germans could best-case have advanced to Smolensk and then it begins to snow and where are they?

And,

...war just using the common Franco-German border is a non-starter. Immediate stalemate.

So at the end of 1914 with Belgium neutral it is as follows:

1. The Central Powers front line against Russia is at Smolensk.

2. Serbia is therefore in all probability already overrun and Bulgaria/Turkey are in the war.

3. Rumania and Italy's neutrality for the foreseeable future seems assured. If Rumania intervenes, it will be on the side of the Central Powers.

4. The breaking of any potential British blockade by way of the capture of the Ukraine looks inevitable for 1915.

5. The French 1914 offensive is a 'non-starter'; it has come off the rails completely and Russia has no hope of relief from that quarter.

6. Russia's continuation in the war is therefore an open question; either she goes down fighting as a pawn of the west or she seeks peace with Germany. Either way, France is in serious trouble.

Salesie, without reference to hobbits, can you kindly explain how any of this is in the slightest acceptable to France or Russia? That is, how the inevitable consequences to Belgian neutrality is in any way compatible with Franco-Russian war planning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without labouring the point... I think avoiding the Mons thread is a cop out.

Members have brought some valid and very concrete arguments.

Schlieffen is a very abstract Theme and will be as long as noone finds the smoking gun... anyone can add their 2c and not be proved wrong.... but Mons has some objective and not to be denied errors.

I am dissapointed that you do not feel the need to answer the critiques.

Best

Chris

Chris,

OK, I read the whole thing.

I'm afraid I'm not willing to address the accusations some people made that I'm a Nazi.

The last real post was June 2010. It looks like this thread has gone cold.

That being said, if you will point out a specific critique, I'll be glad to address it.

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrance,

I did not intend to get your back up but apparently I did. I have already apologized if I had insulted anyone. That was not my intent. I am not going ad hominem. A couple points and then I will withdraw.

My name is not Joe Rookery. It is Joe Robinson. The Rookery is a rather famous structure on Ft. Leavenworth where I had the privilege to live for a while. Unfortunately, I took my e-mail “handle” from that time and I have been unable or unwilling to face the pain of changing it.

Your comment about the thread being too general ignores all of the discussion about the writings of the traditionalists v. Boguslawski and v. Scherff and the reformer General-Lieutenant v. Schlichting, 1889 vs. 1906 and a host of other questions. If you feel that that is too general that is your right.

I thank you for and admire your previous service. You do not really want to compare your former service record with mine. I do not think that the details of my experience is germane to a discussion of Mons or vintage doctrine. I do not understand why you think my time at the War College is somehow a negative.

The moderators have done a great job with the threads about your books. I did not intend to insult anyone. Certainly I am not going ad hominem. I disagreed with both your premise and your approach to the Ardennes book. I will withdraw from this discussion as it clearly has been a very good thread and I appreciate your participation. This back and forth on a different subject is not what this forum is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Salesie, Grey is saying precisely that; Britain will not promise neutrality to Germany under any condition; including one where France invaded Belgium. Her hands must remain free to act no matter what France or Germany does, and no matter how France or Germany answers any questions he might have.

Precisely! Thanks for confirming my point about Britain's centuries old stance - I knew you'd get there in the end. Britain would not pledge neutrality over Belgium (or anywhere else, including The Shire) to either Germany or France (or any other country, including Mordor and Middle-Earth).

If Germany had had any geo-political nous at all in 1914 (and for the previous two decades) she would have waited to see if France did actually enter Belgium first (as it supposedly believed it would, and especially if she intended to fight on internal lines at the very beginning as Terence constantly says she did) - then, under the treaty, Germany could have demanded that Britain act against France. Now that would really have put Britain onto the diplomatic back-foot.

Now, the previous paragraph may look like I'm stepping into your world now, a world of Whatif fantasies, but the foregoing Whatif makes a relevant point about reality i.e. Germany should have been aware that on 1st August France had assured Belgium (as well as Britain) that it would respect Belgian neutrality unconditionally. Indeed, on 3rd August, in her reply to Germany's ultimatum of 2nd August, Belgium told Germany that it had received assurances from France that she would not violate her borders. The relevant points are thus:

The opening paragraphs of the German ultimatum, 2nd August, "Reliable information has been received by the German Government to the effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany.

The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany.

It is essential for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory.

In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government make the following declaration:......." and so on and so forth.

The relevant point in the Belgian reply, 3rd August, "This note has made a deep and painful impression upon the Belgian Government. The intentions attributed to France by Germany are in contradiction to the formal declarations made to us on August 1, in the name of the French Government.

Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, Belgian neutrality should be violated by France, Belgium intends to fulfil her international obligations and the Belgian army would offer the most vigorous resistance to the invader."

It seems that Germany had no real reason to expect a French attack through Belgium, but it does seem that von Jagow, the German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, knew of another reason why Germany needed to march through Belgium.

The following extract is taken from the report of the British Ambassador to Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen: "In accordance with the instructions contained in your telegram of the 4th instant, I called upon the Secretary of State that afternoon and inquired, in the name of His Majesty's Government, whether the Imperial Government would refrain from violating Belgian neutrality.

Herr von Jagow at once replied that he was sorry to say that his answer must be "No," as, in consequence of the German troops having crossed the frontier that morning, Belgian neutrality had been already violated.

Herr von Jagow again went into the reasons why the Imperial Government had been obliged to take this step, namely, that they had to advance into France by the quickest and easiest way, so as to be able to get well ahead with their operations and endeavour to strike some decisive blow as early as possible.

It was a matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the more southern route they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got through without formidable opposition entailing great loss of time.

This loss of time would have meant time gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German asset, while that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of troops."

Note, that von Jagow talks of a rapid penetration into France on the very day that German forces enter Belgium – some twenty days before, so we are told by Terence, that von Moltke actually decided on this course of action.

On 2nd August, Germany tells Belgium that, for its own protection, it must counter a French invasion through Belgium, but the day before France had already given reassurances to both Belgium and Britain that it would honour Belgium neutrality unconditionally. Yet, on the 4th August, von Jagow gives the British Ambassador a somewhat different reason for Germany's violation of Belgium i.e. "to advance into France by the quickest and easiest way, so as to be able to get well ahead with their operations and endeavour to strike some decisive blow as early as possible."

Two different reasons only two days apart! German excuse making , gross German diplomatic incompetence, or did von Jagow simply spill the beans - or all three? Take your pick.

Cheers-salesie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Mr. Zuber has given the outline of the military situation assuming Belgian neutrality holds for the duration of 1914.

From August to October 1914 the Germans could best-case have advanced to Smolensk and then it begins to snow and where are they?

And,

...war just using the common Franco-German border is a non-starter. Immediate stalemate.

So at the end of 1914 with Belgium neutral it is as follows:

1. The Central Powers front line against Russia is at Smolensk.

2. Serbia is therefore in all probability already overrun and Bulgaria/Turkey are in the war.

3. Rumania and Italy's neutrality for the foreseeable future seems assured. If Rumania intervenes, it will be on the side of the Central Powers.

4. The breaking of any potential British blockade by way of the capture of the Ukraine looks inevitable for 1915.

5. The French 1914 offensive is a 'non-starter'; it has come off the rails completely and Russia has no hope of relief from that quarter.

6. Russia's continuation in the war is therefore an open question; either she goes down fighting as a pawn of the west or she seeks peace with Germany. Either way, France is in serious trouble.

Salesie, without reference to hobbits, can you kindly explain how any of this is in the slightest acceptable to France or Russia? That is, how the inevitable consequences to Belgian neutrality is in any way compatible with Franco-Russian war planning?

Me explain? I can't - because, and this may come as a shock to you, there is no definitive answer; it didn't happen, it's not real. Consequently, the possible outcomes of any hypothetical scenario are far more numerous than even you imagine.

For example, neither Germany nor France invade Belgium, Britain only gives vital naval support to secure the French coast and shipping, Germany halts operations in Russia because of the winter (and Russia grows stronger with more and more men becoming trained), stalemate on the western front (neither army can break through), come spring 1915 Russia can now afford to lose twenty men to Germany's one so simply overwhelms the German Army and decides to carry on, through the rest of Europe, to the Channel, but leaves Belgium alone because it doesn't want to fall out with Britain in gratitude for the numerous British convoys that brought all the weapons to arm the forty-odd million Russians that lust after German blood (and French blood for being a bunch w*nkers and not breaking through the German lines), no revolution in Russia instead the White Army enthrones Nicholas II as a living God - until he dies then they wonder how they could have been so stupid, then....? Then again, perhaps as an alternative.....?

As a writer of fiction, my advice to you is that your own scenario could be a good starting point for a novel; just think of it, you could satisfy all of your fantasies, many times over if you write a series of novels, the possibilities are endless. Your own scenario would be a good start, and you can use mine if you like, free of charge of course (such advice would normally cost you plenty).

Please don't think I'm being flippant - I'm deadly serious; non-fiction or fiction, the choice is yours but please don't involve me in any of your attempts to turn one into the other.

Cheers-salesie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a couple or more other questions on that thread. I would be dissapointed if that was enough to keep you away from it... Even the 1914 French Infantry would have attacked with relish...

best

Chris

Chris,

You know the thread better than I do. Pick something.

Terence Zuber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do the Nazis have to do with this?

Terence Zuber

Not a lot, other than the fact that in the same way WW2 apologists blame the allies for sowing the seeds of WW2 in 1919, the WW1 apologists seek to shift the blame for WW1 as well.

You are correct, the last real post on the Mons thread was in mid 2010, but any discussion about a book without the input of the author is like having a rock n roll show without the band... as it is... Elvis has just entered the building, so I would be keen to see some of the issues addressed from your side.

Believe it or not, i am not partisan in this, rather, my interest is to get your take.

A thought to your sentence on this thread...

"Russia declared general mobilization first, setting the Franco-Russian attack plan in motion."

IMHO mobilization means nothing. I assume it was clear to everyone back then that due to communications, infrastructure etc. that Russia would need a head start in any conflict to be anywhere near ready, whether she planned offensive or defensive action. The act of mobilistation is not prrof of intent, and in the case of Russia (as history shows) was very prudent.

(A parallel most infantrymen would be able to appretiate, in a potentially hostile situation to lock and load, not only to be ready, but also to signal determination.... it does not mean you are on a path of no return and intend to burn a village down)

Your interpratation of Serbian Guilt, I dont go along with it, but I am willing to let you educate me...

I assume the details of the following are correct?

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/austrianultimatum.htm

What is missing for me is ... what was unreasonable in the Serbian reply? One could argue that the Austrians were really pushing it.

and to some it all up... I still dont see how it justifies invading neutral Belgium?

Best

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terence,

I would rather not drag the topic too far from the Schlieffen Plan here as the July Crisis can get complex to say the least, but I felt it only polite to address your answers to me;

1. Everybody knew who Apis was.

And in 1914 nobody had anything to suggest he was involved until the war was well under way.

Come on. The Austrians demanded an investigation. They knew what they would find.

Maybe, but at the time Austria declared war they had no actual link to Apis - he was not implicated by the assassins, only Ciganovic and Tankosic were noted at this point - and Austria showed almost nothing to other powers to justify her actions. Maybe Austria did not have to justify her actions as she was a Great Power and could exercise her sovereign right to declare war on whoever she wanted to, but exactly the same applied to Russia, and if Austria wished to avoid war with Russia it was down to Austria to present as much evidence as possible to try and force Russia to back away from military support of Serbia.

2. And after the fact the Russians would have been shocked, just shocked, to think that Apis had organized the assassination.

Maybe, maybe not. Austria offered nothing in the way of evidence against Apis, and nothing in the way of diplomatic talks to clear the way for some action against Serbia. All we do know is Austria had no evidence to link Apis to anything until long after all Europe was at war, and iirc not until long after the war was over.

3. Apis was not an 'officer', he was the head of Serb security. If he was a loose cannon, then a responsible government would have removed and punished him. Instead, the Serb government protected him.

I think you are confusing Tankosic with Dimitrijevic (Apis), the former was implicated and Austria requested Serbia hand him over - but offered nothing to support this request - whilst Apis was not implicated at all and Austria made no accusation against him. Given time and negotiation Serbia may well have handed Tankosic over, but Austria neither negotiated or allowed time to achieve anything - expecting Serbia to respond fully in a tenth of the time it had taken Austria to compose the Note.

4. The Serb government was in the wrong. It owed the Austrians the gravest apology, full cooperation and compensation.

I agree, but I do not think this needed to be war, nor that Austria could not have discussed the matter with Serbia.

5. The Russians owed the Austrians full support in punishing an act of murder and terrorism by their rogue client state. Instead, they declared general mobilization.

Russia was shown no evidence to support the idea Serbia as a state was involved in the assassination, Austria refused to talk to anyone rather than share any evidence she had - the evidence she did supply was only after she was at war. Maybe if Austria had actually discussed matters openly Russia would not have acted as she did - although if Austria had been honest about her intention to parcel out pieces of Serbia as bribes to other Balkan states, her claim to be acting only to get justice for the assassination would have evaporated.

6. The assassination was a calculated outrage. What were the Austrians supposed to do?

How about trying to persue those actually responsible and have them tried in a court rather than start a war? How about negotiate with Serbia after the reply to the Note as the Kaiser suggested? War was not the only possible response. Nothing forced Austria to refuse to talk to other nations in order to make her case against Serbia.

7. The point being here that the Russians had two weeks at the minimum to conduct negotiations

Germany had at least days between ordering her own mobilization and any planned military action - the start of the Liege coup - so why did Germany declare war and not at least try to solve matters short of war in that time? She could have mobilized and talked for those three days, still declared war the moment she was ready to act at Liege if no settlement had happened and lost no time or suffered any inconvenience by doing so. Why cut off all hope of a settlement until it was absolutely necessary?

8, You missed this part. There was no reason for the Russians to mobilize - unless they wanted to get the war going.

You seem to have missed the fact that Austria declared war on Serbia and was still refusing to talk to Russia. Russia was forced to either do nothing and suffer a massive diplomatic defeat or use the threat of military force to compell Austria to cease her war and start to talk.

Given the Austrian Crown Council meeting on 7th July had concluded that going to war with Serbia would mean war with Russia too, how on earth is following that policy a sensible option for Austria? Austria knew exactly how her actions would force Russia to react, yet made no attempt to avoid it.

I would also like to echo the sentiment Chris expressed;

I still dont see how it justifies invading neutral Belgium?

Belgium was not connected in any way with events in Serbia or Russia, so the German invasion was still a gross breach of faith and unwarrented aggression to a small state she had sworn to protect and uphold the neutrality of. A great wrong was done to Belgium - the exact words Bethmann used - and nothing can change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. The assassination was a calculated outrage. What were the Austrians supposed to do?

When in doubt...

When you cannot get the guys who REALLY did it...

When your pride is hurt...

Invade someone who had nothing to do with anything!

;-)

Belgium is tailor made for it :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Rookery wrote:

"...I will withdraw from this discussion as it clearly has been a very good thread and I appreciate your participation..."

Joe, I find this sad. You and I have exchanged e-mails on the great "von Schlieffen debate" since they first appeared in "War in History," years ago, and I know your level of interest.

I'm always uncomfortable with labeling folks, especially when it shuts down dialogue, as it's clearly done here. I'm not sure if Joe's being a "former War College type" matters to the strength or weakness of either side of the discussion. The points should stand on their own merit.

This has been a revealing thread in many ways. I've learned as much about the participants as I have the subject itself. Perhaps more.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. The assassination was a calculated outrage. What were the Austrians supposed to do?

When in doubt...

When you cannot get the guys who REALLY did it...

When your pride is hurt...

Invade someone who had nothing to do with anything!

;-)

Belgium is tailor made for it :-)

Chris,

I think you're aware that Conrad von Hötzendorf had been urging various preventative wars for years on much flimsier pretexts than an assassination. He was even briefly dismissed for his "hawk" stance.

Don't forget Luxembourg--Belgium wasn't the only doormat of 1914.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

Two comments:

1. Not to add to the debate but a comment addressed to two of the contributors: Terence Zuber and Joe Rookery, as I have books by both of you on my bookshelf and value them all, please return to the debate, which I (armchair) generally think has been conducted in a reasonably polite manner so far.

2. I know Terence Zuber has styled himself Schlieffen but it might be more productive to start a new separate thread/threads on the other topics, to answer questions specific to them. I (erroneously) thought this thread had run its course a few pages back and discussed some minor points on the Ardennes. I know there are two separate threads already on the Mons and Ardennes books but if the content is stifling further discussion perhaps a brand new thread(s) will clear the air ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...