|
closeted republican posted:My understanding of Wilhem II was that he was a paranoid bastard that thought the UK, France, and Italy were waiting to invade and take down the German Empire for whatever reason at any moment, which is why Germany armed itself to the teeth and why the Germany Navy was custom-built to take down the Royal Navy. Germany wasn't an absolute dictatorship run by an individual, so analyses based on him alone without looking at the broader German power structure is pretty "ehh". One reason I've seen for the German naval armament was purely internally focused, as a form of proto-Keynesian investment to strengthen German industry and to act as another source of employment for the officer class. That it was taken by the British as aggressive towards them was unintended. Likewise Wilhem had very little to do with the direct outbreak of WWI, he was only told what he needed to be told at a time that was convenient for the people who actually ran things.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Yeah, and once in the war Germany turned into pretty much a military Dictatorship run by its top generals. Wilhelm was mostly at fault for having a tiny penis and the complex that came with that. Pretty sure he was writing letters to his cousins (like the Tsar) how he wanted to avoid war up to the last moment (...and he went on a vacation in July too, didn't he?). He wasn't exactly on the ball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Also don't forget Jean Jaurès, the guy who was basically the leader of the entire leftist anti-militarist movement. He got assassinated basically at the outbreak of war, leaving that faction of the Second International leaderless and probably significantly contributing to the victory of pro-national elements in the European socialist parties, leading again to the fracturing of European leftism into Second Internationalists and Zimmerwald-Leftists. Apparently Lenin literally refused to believe it when he first got news that the SPD had supported the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Anyone interested in the origins of World War I should really check out Chris Clark's book "The Sleepwalkers", its probably one of the best history books I've ever read. His command of the sources he uses is incredible, you get a really intimate look at the decision making behind the different governments, the way that personal conflicts and bureacratic restructuring influenced the decade leading up to the war, the dynamics of the alliance system, the role played by imperial executives, and a whole lot more. Clark's familiarity with the internal documents and memos of the various great Powers is quite impressive. Its also nice because in contrast to most English language books on the origin of the war Clark dedicates most of his attention to the East and the Balkans (Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August", by contrast, spends the majority of its time focusing on Britain). I read Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" after reading Margaret McMillan's book "The War That Ended The Peace." They're great books that compliment each other -- Clark's is probably more in-depth, while McMillan's is probably more approachable to the general public, and focuses, as McMillan likes to do, on the big personalities of the time. One thing that McMillan points out that I haven't seen elsewhere is that WW1 saved Britain from dealing with the Irish Questions for a little while. Up until the various Continental Powers began to mobilize, British domestic politics were far more pressing and people were worried that the whole issue of Irish autonomy would lead to civil war in Britain. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Oh hey, I just posted this in the Marxism thread 18 October 1909. I have read the highlighted section several times in other sources but I simply cannot track down the original source. Whether or not Jaurès could have convinced French socialists towards pacifism, the Germans might have been disinclined anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
That's a real possibility, of course, but there was a fairly sizable faction (mostly the left wing, admittedly) of the SPD which were opposed enough to actually break with the party (which was super taboo at the time, unity was a huge deal in those days) and defy party discipline on the matter. There was an anti-militarist faction in the SPD, and it's not inconceivable that with Jaurès alive and active, more moderates would have joined in and they would've won out. This would probably again have led to a general strike (per the Second International's resolution) and effective shutting down of the war, or a transformation into a European revolutionary struggle - or a complete discrediting of the organised European left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Yeah, and once in the war Germany turned into pretty much a military Dictatorship run by its top generals. http://www.talleyrand.be/neutrality_of_belgium.htm Here is a series of telegrams between the Kaiser and the Tsar. You could read the messages as if the grand mobilization plans make any chance of peace impossible, but it seems to me to be more like somewhat powerless figureheads watching the real drivers of their countries work in spite of the nominal leaders wishes. edit: This is probably even better http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilhelm_II%27s_Account_of_Events Wilhelm was in Norway and everyone told him to stay there while they did things (even when he wanted to come back), and he got more information from Norwegian newspapers than from "his" government. This is the stereotypical incompetent politically appointed boss that nobody trusts to do anything except to turn up to events and hopefully not say something stupid in their speech. Soviet Space Dog fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:My understanding of Wilhem II was that he was a paranoid bastard that thought the UK, France, and Italy were waiting to invade and take down the German Empire for whatever reason at any moment, which is why Germany armed itself to the teeth and why the Germany Navy was custom-built to take down the Royal Navy. Point one isn't all that correct; Wilhelm II was paranoid a bit, but mainly that his uncle and cousin, Kings Edward VII and George V respectively, weren't taking him seriously as a person and monarch. Wilhelm had a real insecurity about the British generally, wanting them to admire and respect both he and Germany as equals, but simultaneously resenting his British mother for his father's death (he thought she persuaded him to not seek medical help for his cancer until it was far too late). I've never seen anything to indicate he actually feared war with Britain until it actually came about, whatever his thoughts on continental encirclement may have been. Point two, however, is right on the money and got him into trouble even before the war. In particular, he went on record admiring and praising the Boers during their dust up with the British in South Africa, which was both sticking his nose in where it didn't belong (and risking internationalizing another Great Power's colonial problems), and also seen as a slight by Edward VII. V. Illych L. posted:That's a real possibility, of course, but there was a fairly sizable faction (mostly the left wing, admittedly) of the SPD which were opposed enough to actually break with the party (which was super taboo at the time, unity was a huge deal in those days) and defy party discipline on the matter. There was an anti-militarist faction in the SPD, and it's not inconceivable that with Jaurès alive and active, more moderates would have joined in and they would've won out. This would probably again have led to a general strike (per the Second International's resolution) and effective shutting down of the war, or a transformation into a European revolutionary struggle - or a complete discrediting of the organised European left. This is one of the big what-ifs of the crisis period, as Jaurès carried enough weight within the International that he might- might! have been able to achieve an anti-war majority (though as Ronya points out even then there's a good chance national chauvinism would keep a considerable minority pro-war). It's counterfactual as balls, but I tend to think, given how sensitive the Third Republic was still due to the 1870-71 curb stomping they'd gotten, had there been considerable anti-war activism led by a united left, with or without a general strike, you may well have seen France degenerate into civil war. Soviet Space Dog posted:http://www.talleyrand.be/neutrality_of_belgium.htm That's the thing though; both Willy and Nicky had the power to stop their states' leaders from progressing to war, but neither had the will or frankly political savvy to know 1) that they could and 2) how to do it. Nicholas did cancel full mobilization once during the July Crisis, and had other events not snowballed that ought to have been enough for Grey's peace conference to get off the ground. Had he held his nerve when Samsonov came back subsequently to demand full mobilization a second time, or if Wilhelm had ever bothered to yank von Moltke's leash when he was running around telling the Austrians they had to fully mobilize against Russia (and that Germany would also do so, something von Moltke had no authority to claim), they really could have stopped things. So I guess from my perspective it's not that they were powerless figureheads, so much as weak and clueless, though you might call that a distinction without difference. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:My understanding of Wilhem II was that he was a paranoid bastard that thought the UK, France, and Italy were waiting to invade and take down the German Empire for whatever reason at any moment, which is why Germany armed itself to the teeth and why the Germany Navy was custom-built to take down the Royal Navy. I think there was a certain amount of justification to his paranoia. For all the Great Powers, paranoia was kindof the rational response to the situation in Europe at the time. Everyone was a violently expanding power who was plotting against each other, which of course justified your own military obsession and need to maintain power/allies at all costs. Everyone was behaving fairly "reasonable" given their situation, its just that the situation was a trap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
ronya posted:Oh hey, I just posted this in the Marxism thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Wilhlem II was responsible for throwing Bismarck out of power, wasn't he? The power vacuum being filled by less competent militarists probably didn't help matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Wilhlem II was responsible for throwing Bismarck out of power, wasn't he? The power vacuum being filled by less competent militarists probably didn't help matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Bismark had been dead for 16 years when the war began, so this was probably not a major effect. True, but the change from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik was definitely a contributing factor to rising tensions between the Great Powers in the run-up to the war, as well as a major one in narrowing diplomatic options to balance of power crises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:This is the stereotypical incompetent politically appointed boss that nobody trusts to do anything except to turn up to events and hopefully not say something stupid in their speech. Well, when it comes to Wilhelm II, these concerns were well-founded. He couldn't keep himself from calling the English population paranoid lunatics even when he specifically set out to give Germany good PR in the English press. Edit: here's the interview The Daily Telegraph posted:"You English," he said, "are mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation? What more can I do than I have done? I declared with all the emphasis at my command, in my speech at Guildhall, that my heart is set upon peace, and that it is one of my dearest wishes to live on the best of terms with England. Have I ever been false to my word ? Falsehood and prevarication are alien to my nature. My actions ought to speak for themselves, but you listen not to them but to those who misinterpret and distort them. That is a personal insult which I feel and resent. To be forever misjudged, to have my repeated offers of friendship weighed and scrutinized with jealous, mistrustful eyes, taxes my patience severely. I have said time after time that I am a friend of England, and your press --, at least, a considerable section of it -- bids the people of England refuse my proffered hand and insinuates that the other holds a dagger.  Just for good measure, he called just about every other European power treacherous schemers too. quote:"Again, when the struggle was at its height, the German government was invited by the governments of France and Russia to join with them in calling upon England to put an end to the war. The moment had come, they said, not only to save the Boer Republics, but also to humiliate England to the dust.  VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Bismark had been dead for 16 years when the war began, so this was probably not a major effect. It certainly created a precedent for what type of person that would become politically rewarded with high office, those that knew how to manage an opinionated, proud and stupid boss with a strong focus on non-pragmatic foreign policy based on symbolic shows of strength.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Don't forget the delightful episode where he tells the German relief force to be sent to China to take no prisoners and generally murder and terrorize enough Chinese to make a name for themselves equivalent to Atilla the Hun. Not a great speaker, that guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
There's a reason I put hopefully in that sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Uncle Wilhelm really wanted to make up for that broken shell of an arm he had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
So, I have always argued (and may have written a term paper or two) that WWI was actually a war of independance for many of the Commonwealth nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), and the pressures put on by the Dominions laid the groundwork for the Statute of Westminster post-war. Also, one question I've always wondered is why Canadian troops seemed to punch well above their weight? Case in point, Canada's hundred days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Canadians are taught that Canadian troops punched above their weight, Australians are taught that Australian troops punched above their weight, I wonder why this is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
The more I read about Wilhelm II the more I realize that he really wasn't bright at all. Between 1897 and 1903 he cooked up a hare-brained scheme to bring the United States to its knees by invading Boston and NYC via Cape Cod and Sandy Hook, NJ respectively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Canadians are taught that Canadian troops punched above their weight, Australians are taught that Australian troops punched above their weight, I wonder why this is? They did? I dunno. I mean, look at Amiens, Vimy, and the 100 days?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Irish are taught we didn't fight at all and instead spent the war in a constant state of unrest, so I guess that counts as WWI being a war of self-determination. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Canadians are taught that Canadian troops punched above their weight, Australians are taught that Australian troops punched above their weight, I wonder why this is? I'm an American and the general sentiment is that in WW1 & WW2 Canadian troops punched above their weight... so there might be some truth to that or it might be that we just really like/respect our quiet neighbors to the north. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:The more I read about Wilhelm II the more I realize that he really wasn't bright at all. Not really defending him, but he was also fairly obviously damaged beyond repair as a child by his incredibly dysfunctional relationship with his Mother, the attempts of a bunch of utterly barbaric doctors to "cure" his withered arm, and a sense of paranoid inferiority amongst his peers in his family which was practically nurtured by the environment in the various European courts of the time. It's actually a wonder he wasn't even crazier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I'm an American and the general sentiment is that in WW1 & WW2 Canadian troops punched above their weight... so there might be some truth to that or it might be that we just really like/respect our quiet neighbors to the north. Anecdotal but I did IB for high school and our senior year history teacher told us that if we got a WW1 or WW2 essay question for the final IB exams, to praise the Canadian army at some point because Canadians would most likely be the ones grading our exams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
HCO Plumer GCB GCM posted:Not really defending him, but he was also fairly obviously damaged beyond repair as a child by his incredibly dysfunctional relationship with his Mother, the attempts of a bunch of utterly barbaric doctors to "cure" his withered arm, and a sense of paranoid inferiority amongst his peers in his family which was practically nurtured by the environment in the various European courts of the time. Yeah, he really went through quite a bit of torment due to his disability, and attempts made to correct it/compensate for it. Lemme see if I can dig up that passage from Robert Massie's Dreadnought (which is a wonderful read on the naval arms race and last stretch of the Long 19th Century): quote:Riding lessons, begun when the Prince was eight, became a matter of ruthlessness for the adults and endurance for William. Over and over, in the words of the tutor who supervised these lessons, "the weeping prince," was "set on his horse, without stirrups and compelled to go through the paces. He fell off continually; every time, despite his prayers and tears, he was lifted up and set upon its back again. After weeks of torture, the difficult task was accomplished; he had got his balance." Wilhelm himself blamed his mother for this, and other torments he endured (or imagined) growing up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:They did? I dunno. I mean, look at Amiens, Vimy, and the 100 days? Don't forget being the only ones to hold the line during the first chemical weapons attack on the western front. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
"Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" - Bismarck
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:They did? I dunno. I mean, look at Amiens, Vimy, and the 100 days? Were you ever taught that there was roughly as many Australian divisions as Canadian in the general offensive, and possibly the best general was the Australian Monash? Of course the Australian WWI mythology is now focused around Gallipoli now so most don't even know about the Western front at all. Soviet Space Dog fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Were you ever taught that there was roughly as many Australian divisions as Canadian in the general offensive, and probably the best general was the Australian Monash? Yes. There is a reason I mentioned Amiens. I wasn't denying Australia was punching above their weight. I was just saying the reason we were taught they did was because they did. Also, I'd argue Currie was superior to Monash (Lloyd George admitted that if war continued to 1919, he woulda sacked Haig, replaced him with Currie and made Monash his 2-i-c)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Were you ever taught that there was roughly as many Australian divisions as Canadian in the general offensive, and possibly the best general was the Australian Monash? Well not for nothing is that the case. Even stripped of the myth-making, Gallipoli is an epic affair for which ANZACand also the Lancashires, who always get left out of the tellingare rightly famous. bunnyofdoom posted:Also, I'd argue Currie was superior to Monash (Lloyd George admitted that if war continued to 1919, he woulda sacked Haig, replaced him with Currie and made Monash his 2-i-c) It's also admirable that during 3rd Ypres Currie was one of the few subordinate commanders who, in much more polite terms than I'm about to use, told Haig that his plan was straight up bullshit and would only result in getting him men killed for no real gain. I trust you will all be just shocked to learn that Haig overruled him, and sent the Canadians on to their deaths regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well not for nothing is that the case. Even stripped of the myth-making, Gallipoli is an epic affair for which ANZACand also the Lancashires, who always get left out of the tellingare rightly famous. It's quite hard to strip myth from Gallipoli since it was being mythologized as it was going on, you had Bean as journalist/historian turning it into a statement of the AustralianNZAC matey spirit (and disliking Monash because he was methodical and Jewish).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Were you ever taught that there was roughly as many Australian divisions as Canadian in the general offensive, and possibly the best general was the Australian Monash? There's been an extreme amount of focus on the part of both world wars where we fought Arabs and I could not possibly guess why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:There's been an extreme amount of focus on the part of both world wars where we fought Arabs and I could not possibly guess why. The Ottoman Empire weren't Arabs. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:They did? I dunno. I mean, look at Amiens, Vimy, and the 100 days? Isn't it true that Canada didn't have conscription until later in the war? I imagine volunteers would fight better than conscripts in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Isn't it true that Canada didn't have conscription until later in the war? I imagine volunteers would fight better than conscripts in general. Conscription was introduced in 1917. Vimy occured April 1917, Amiens and Hundred Days were 1918.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Isn't it true that Canada didn't have conscription until later in the war? I imagine volunteers would fight better than conscripts in general. This varies considerably depending on war, and army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:There's been an extreme amount of focus on the part of both world wars where we fought Arabs and I could not possibly guess why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Canadians are taught that Canadian troops punched above their weight, Australians are taught that Australian troops punched above their weight, I wonder why this is? Both Australians and Canadians punched above their weight because they tended to have better command staff and training, and the British ended up using them as shock troopers. By 1916 Canadians insisted (with the infamous Sir Sam Hughes, the Rob Ford of 1914-1918, leading the charge) that they run their own corps, and the British agreed. Canadian WW1 historians have argued that the smaller, leaner force learned how to be mobile in the trenches faster than other armies because British staff generals couldn't interfere with their smaller-scale command structure or planning. Canadians developed the creeping barrage, and with some very effective leadership, helped transform the Canadians into a pretty tremendous fighting force given their size. I imagine it was similar with the Australians, but I'm not familiar with Australian WW1 military history. The Dominion troops really were terrific soldiers in WW1 and even the Germans acknowledged it. bunnyofdoom posted:Also, I'd argue Currie was superior to Monash (Lloyd George admitted that if war continued to 1919, he woulda sacked Haig, replaced him with Currie and made Monash his 2-i-c) Man the other British generals would have had a loving fit if that had happened. But yeah Canada and Australia somehow turned out very good generals. Although Currie's reputation after the war suffered partly because of the 100 days. He was incredibly hard working and great at strategic planning but wasn't very charismatic. That coupled with the atrocious casualties in the 100 days meant there were a lot of veterans who resented Currie after the war. OctaviusBeaver posted:Isn't it true that Canada didn't have conscription until later in the war? I imagine volunteers would fight better than conscripts in general. Most of the conscripts didn't arrive until very late in the war. That being said, something like 30-40% of CEF volunteers at the beginning of the war were British immigrants who came to Canada. It was still a very British army. Conscription also almost tore Canada apart and left serious divisions within Canadian society that still exist today! Dreylad fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:47
|
|