Is Germany to blame for World War I

[unmerged(3016)]

Originally posted by Bourbon


Exactly, Germany needed a fleet for the same reason as US and Japan - to expand colonially. Plus, unlike US Germany needed to import foodstuffs and raw materials.

And yes, Germany did want to ally with Britain prior to 1904. The reason they kept rejecting British overtures for improvement of relations, was that they were foolishly hoping that by showing how tough they are, they would induce Britain into an actual alliance, not just an entente.

Yes , Germany wanted that fleet for the reasons you cite but the important point is there is no alternative for Germany in building a colonial empire than to impact on Britains interests.There is no serious conflict presented by the US and Japan to Britains commercial activities , theres the difference.

And you are pointing out yourself there that you believe the Germans may have been foolish in their diplomatic efforts , which is one of the pointers toward a certain ineptitude on their part and hence the historians tendency to apportion blame.

It isn't necessarily a moral judgment of some kind that we are attempting to make here , but one of ability.

 

[unmerged(3016)]

Originally posted by Bourbon


I agree that from the British viewpoint the German navy construction was the most threatening. My point is that Germany should not be blamed for this, given that all it was simply doing was attempting to expand its power and influence, just like EVERY OTHER GREAT POWER. The difference was that Germany was the only European Great Power so strong that its natural ambitions would terribly threaten the British. SO in a way, everything that happened was almost foreshadowed. Germany was bound to expand its navy early or later given its national strength (after all, why should the potentially weaker British and French have colonial monopoly?), and British were bound to feel threatened. No one side is to blame.

Yes , obviously there is a sort of Darwinian aspect to all of this and we can talk of the relations between nations purely in those kinds of terms but there is a certain amount of human judgment involved that shouldn't be discounted - it does sort of make up history after all.Of course the German elite led their country in the direction they did because they wanted more wealth and power , a 'share' of what other nations elites , most notably the British enjoyed.But that was a conscious decision that was executed with careful planning at every step by people who were responsible for the consequences of their actions.So in fact everything is not foreshadowed , that is an abrogation of the whole purpose of a historical discussion.We have the ability to examine the motives , desires and actions of our ancestors and draw conclusions from plausible resources.

And in this particular instance many people find the planning ability of Germanys wealthiest and most powerful inhabitants to be based on faulty judgement.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon


I agree that from the British viewpoint the German navy construction was the most threatening. My point is that Germany should not be blamed for this, given that all it was simply doing was attempting to expand its power and influence, just like EVERY OTHER GREAT POWER. The difference was that Germany was the only European Great Power so strong that its natural ambitions would terribly threaten the British. SO in a way, everything that happened was almost foreshadowed. Germany was bound to expand its navy early or later given its national strength (after all, why should the potentially weaker British and French have colonial monopoly?), and British were bound to feel threatened. No one side is to blame.

No, Germany was not attempting to expand its power and influence just like every other Great Power. They set out to deliberately upset the balance of power. Most Great Powers attempted to work within the general confines of the balance of power; Britain strove to maintain the balance of power. Germany was the desruptive influence in Europe from 1890 to 1914.

Germany was never bound to expand its navy. Germany was no more dependent on overseas trade than France or Italy or Russia (perhaps less so). More importantly, Germany was way less dependent on overseas trade & food than Britian. The colonies that Germany did acquire after 1870 were worthless stretches of desert or useless islands in the Pacific. They were nothing but a drain on the German economy. Bismarck recognized this, and wished to reign in useless overseas adventures. After his dismissal, Wilhelm of course reversed direction. No stretch of desert or jungle was too irrelevent for the German flag. If Germany wanted a colonial empire that had any real value, it would have to seize colonies from France or Britain. This is yet another reason why the German naval buildup provoked the hostility of the British. Since it was completely implausible that the Germans could be building state-of-the-art battleships to defend German East Africa or the Caroline Islands, it was surmised that they must be directed at the British Empire, as the largest and most profitable empire.

Besides, keep in mind that at no time was the German naval buildup designed to seize colonies or protect overseas trade. Overseas trade is protected by cruisers with a large cruising radius. German built few such ships, and concentrated on short-range battleships and battlecruisers whose only purpose for existence was to destroy the Royal Navy in a single great naval battle ("der Tag").

In retrospect, while we might think it would have made sense for the Germans to build a fleet to protect overseas trade, one must keep in mind that the German fleet actually constructed was an offensive weapon aimed at the throat of Britain, & was nothing else.

 

[unmerged(3360)]

worthless stretches of desert

May I remind you that this stretch of desert ( Deutsch-Südwest) has one of the richest occurrences of diamonds in the world? And the mining began right back then when it still was a german colony. About the other colonies: Sure they were not very useful, economically, for their costs far outraged their profits. But they, too, were far from worthless.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Georg I.


May I remind you that this stretch of desert ( Deutsch-Südwest) has one of the richest occurrences of diamonds in the world? And the mining began right back then when it still was a german colony. About the other colonies: Sure they were not very useful, economically, for their costs far outraged their profits. But they, too, were far from worthless.

I was using a bit of descriptive license with that description. However, the revenues generated from German colonies was far less than the cost of administrating & garrisoning them, and were a constant drain on the German treasury up to 1914. The Allies actually did the Germans a favour by taking away their colonies after the First World War.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


No, Germany was not attempting to expand its power and influence just like every other Great Power. They set out to deliberately upset the balance of power. Most Great Powers attempted to work within the general confines of the balance of power; Britain strove to maintain the balance of power. Germany was the desruptive influence in Europe from 1890 to 1914.

Germany was never bound to expand its navy. Germany was no more dependent on overseas trade than France or Italy or Russia (perhaps less so). More importantly, Germany was way less dependent on overseas trade & food than Britian. The colonies that Germany did acquire after 1870 were worthless stretches of desert or useless islands in the Pacific. They were nothing but a drain on the German economy. Bismarck recognized this, and wished to reign in useless overseas adventures. After his dismissal, Wilhelm of course reversed direction. No stretch of desert or jungle was too irrelevent for the German flag. If Germany wanted a colonial empire that had any real value, it would have to seize colonies from France or Britain. This is yet another reason why the German naval buildup provoked the hostility of the British. Since it was completely implausible that the Germans could be building state-of-the-art battleships to defend German East Africa or the Caroline Islands, it was surmised that they must be directed at the British Empire, as the largest and most profitable empire.

Besides, keep in mind that at no time was the German naval buildup designed to seize colonies or protect overseas trade. Overseas trade is protected by cruisers with a large cruising radius. German built few such ships, and concentrated on short-range battleships and battlecruisers whose only purpose for existence was to destroy the Royal Navy in a single great naval battle ("der Tag").

In retrospect, while we might think it would have made sense for the Germans to build a fleet to protect overseas trade, one must keep in mind that the German fleet actually constructed was an offensive weapon aimed at the throat of Britain, & was nothing else.

You are just quoting the traditional history viewpoint written by the victors that unfairly blames the Germans. You say that Germany tried to deliberately uspet the balance of power, yet you give no examples. Can you be more specific? Once again, Germany by its nature was threatening to the balance of power because it was its strongest state, however, it does not mean that it deliberately tried to upset it. If any one state persistently was trying to do this it must have been Russia, which constantly attempted to expand both east and west for the past hundred years, with certainly no regards for the balance of power. Had this been the case with Germany, why wouldn't it have invaced France and Russia in the 90s, before the British entered the entente? During that time, British viewed France and Russia with less favour than Germany, so they might not have interfered. So why didn't "agressive" Germany do this?

And btw, Germany WAS dependent upon overseas trade more than France (which was less industrialized and had more "food") and Russia which had all the needed resources at home. And by 1914, German exports had reached 95% of the British. I admit Germans certainly were building a navy to obtain more colonies as wekk, but I say that they were not aiming for the British in particular. Their plan was during the war, to grab as much as possible from any opponent, obviously including Britain. Once again, I must repeat that German wanted to ally with Britain prioir to 1904, and afterwards desperately wanted to keep its neutrality - its primary occupation was with Russia and France.

I agree that German elites were foolish because they should have known how Britain would react. So in this case, they deserve the blame, even though WWI would have still happened due to French desire for revenge and Autro-Russian tensions. But I refuse to accept the statement that Germany deservs the blame for WWI due its agressiveness.

 

[unmerged(3360)]

I was using a bit of descriptive license with that description. However, the revenues generated from German colonies was far less than the cost of administrating & garrisoning them, and were a constant drain on the German treasury up to 1914. The Allies actually did the Germans a favour by taking away their colonies after the First World War.

But this could be said about nearly all colonies at that time. For example: AFAIK the only "profitable" british colony at that time was India. And when you consider the enormous efforts of the british fleet, land units, administration etc. Britain, and by the way all colonial powers, would have been much better off if they would have only traded with the people around the world than conquer the territory.

But then again, this was not the way they saw it at that time, for the concept of a colonial power was much more related to might and power than to profit.

 

[unmerged(3016)]

Originally posted by Georg I.


But this could be said about nearly all colonies at that time. For example: AFAIK the only "profitable" british colony at that time was India. And when you consider the enormous efforts of the british fleet, land units, administration etc. Britain, and by the way all colonial powers, would have been much better off if they would have only traded with the people around the world than conquer the territory.

But then again, this was not the way they saw it at that time, for the concept of a colonial power was much more related to might and power than to profit.

Well I agree with your remarks about trading with people rather than conquering them but I'm not sure they would have been better off in financial terms.The British didn't develop a colonial empire to conquer territory or to spread civilisation , religion or cricket.They developed their colonies at the expense of the original inhabitants of those places in order to enrich the British economy.Which they did , to a startling extent , some have even speculated that profits from British economic activity in India are responsible for enabling British industrialisation in the C19th.

As respectfully as possible I think that although nebulous desires toward might and power were possibly involved , the prime motive in Britains colonial exploits was profit.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon

You are just quoting the traditional history viewpoint written by the victors that unfairly blames the Germans. You say that Germany tried to deliberately uspet the balance of power, yet you give no examples. Can you be more specific? Once again, Germany by its nature was threatening to the balance of power because it was its strongest state, however, it does not mean that it deliberately tried to upset it.

My particular area of expertise is in the naval race prior to 1914, so I'll give examples from that. In building its fleet, Germany deliberated built it with the sole idea of defeating the Royal Navy. The following information & quotes are from the 15 June 1897 memorandum by von Tirpitz entitled "General Considerations on the Constitution of our Fleet according to Ship Classes and Designs":

1. Tirpitz believed that the German navy should be aimed at the single greatest naval rival, as there was not money to support a fleet to meet other threats. Tirpitz considered England to be the natural naval rival of Germany, & hence the fleet was to built for use against England alone. Therefore, the German navy was never designed to fight the French or the Russians, who were the only rivals of Germany in 1897. The Germans were building a fleet for use in a war against a Power that was not even hostile to them!

2. Tirpitz believed that the great number of British overseas naval bases made the idea of commerce raiding against the British (the preferred French strategy of the late 1800s) "hopeless. He argued that overseas committments should be kept within "strict limits." Instead, the German fleet was to be constructed so as to "unfold its greatest military potential between Helgoland and the Thames," and that "only the main theatre of war would be decisive." As such, the German fleet was designed to fight in the North Sea alone; the battleships lacked the sea range to conduct sorties any farther from the main German bases. Hence the German fleet was designed to be a dagger at England's throat.

3. Tirpitz believed that since the fleet was to be built for war against England, "battleships in as great a number as possible" were required. Cruiser construction was to be limited & of a secondary nature. Since cruisers are the vessels used to defend overseas trade, the German fleet was not constructed to defend German overseas trade or its sea lanes to its few colonies.

4. While Tirpitz believed that the fleet would be a useful political tool, he also foresaw its use in war. He informed the Kaiser that "we shall no doubt have a good chance against England." The German Fleet was no mere diplomatic bargaining chip, but was designed for use in war against England.

What does all of this mean? The construction of the German Fleet from 1897 to 1914 was a disruptive and aggressive act, not because the Germans built a fleet, but because the fleet was obviously built for the sole use of defeating England in a great naval battle in the North Sea & blockading the British Isles. No one objected to Germany building warships, but they did object to Germany building warships in a transparent attempt to destroy the naval supremacy of a nation that was not Germany's natural rival. It is the same as the Soviets putting nuclear missiles into Cuba in the early 1960s. That was an aggressive and destabilizing act, & so was Tirpitz's Naval Plans. No one objected prior to 1897 to Germany building a fleet to secure its sea communications and overseas trade, like France, Russia, Italy, etc. The German Fleet after 1897 was never built to defend anything, but to attack England. It was aggressive, plain and simple.

Also, you say that I am just repeating the traditional viewpoint reiterated by the victors. The victors do tend to write the history, but one of the most important historians to lay the blame for the First World War on Germany was the great Fritz Fishcher, whose works revolutionized the historiography of the issue and changed the face of the teaching & writing of history in Germany. Its one thing when the victors lay the blame on the defeated. It is another thing when the defeated tend to agree.

If any one state persistently was trying to do this it must have been Russia, which constantly attempted to expand both east and west for the past hundred years, with certainly no regards for the balance of power. Had this been the case with Germany, why wouldn't it have invaced France and Russia in the 90s, before the British entered the entente? During that time, British viewed France and Russia with less favour than Germany, so they might not have interfered. So why didn't "agressive" Germany do this?

Germany did not attack in the 1890s because (a) there was no need to & (b) the waning influence of Bismarck & his diplomacy. Germany in the 1890s did not feel threatened. By 1914, they were quite paranoid about the "Slavs" and the traitorous English. In 1914, they were looking for an excuse to launch a pre-emptive war that would secure for them dominance in Europe, & they found it in Sarajevo.

And btw, Germany WAS dependent upon overseas trade more than France (which was less industrialized and had more "food") and Russia which had all the needed resources at home. And by 1914, German exports had reached 95% of the British.

Saying that German exports had reached 95% of the British, while accurate, does not matter to the question of German reliance on overseas trade. There are two key statistics here: reliance on imports and overseas investments. In this context, the first obviously refers to those imports, where food, raw materials, or finished goods, that would be necessary for a well-operating war economy. The second refers to the ability of a nation to run a trade deficit. If a country has a large amount of overseas investments and overseas capital, then it can use these investments to finance purchases in times of emergency.

In terms of imports, I don't have any statistics on the reliance of Germany on imports, but some conclusions can be drawn from the First World War. About 48% of pre-war German imports came from nations that would be enemy states in 1914. Germany, however, was able to find alternative sources of imports, from both Scandinavian states & border states. Also, the blockade was never complete on Germany. American trade with Germany was not severly impacted until the American declaration of war on Germany in early 1917.

However, the real German problem was an distinct lack of overseas investments to draw on. Britain was still by far the world's banker, and as such could draw on enormous overseas reserves when needed. Germany could not, & hence its efforts to run a trade deficit was hindered, causing significant budgetary problems.

The conclusion of all this is that Germany was not as reliant on overseas trade as you argue, in part because it had other options in 1914, & in part because it lacked the finances to do so.

I'll also reiterate that the blockade of Germany took four years to have a significant effect. A similar blockade of Britain would have brought Britain to its knees in six weeks. Yet another reason why the creation of the German Fleet was such a disruptive factor in European politics.

I admit Germans certainly were building a navy to obtain more colonies as wekk, but I say that they were not aiming for the British in particular. Their plan was during the war, to grab as much as possible from any opponent, obviously including Britain. Once again, I must repeat that German wanted to ally with Britain prioir to 1904, and afterwards desperately wanted to keep its neutrality - its primary occupation was with Russia and France.

I agree that German elites were foolish because they should have known how Britain would react. So in this case, they deserve the blame, even though WWI would have still happened due to French desire for revenge and Autro-Russian tensions. But I refuse to accept the statement that Germany deservs the blame for WWI due its agressiveness.

Germany was as preoccupied with Britain as they were with France & Russia, especially psychologically. They admired & hated the British, and both feared them and desired to destroy the British Empire. Yes, the Germans continued to express a desire to come to an understanding, but only on their terms. It would be like the Soviets saying that they wished to be friends with the Americans, if only the Americans would get rid of all of their nuclear weapons. That is not a real desire for an alliance. The British realized this by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century, & realized that Germany wanted to be a rival of England, not a friend. But I do agree that the German elites were foolish, & that they, and Germany, deserve the blame for the First World War.

 

[Keynes]

I'm not sure one can use Tirpitz's one views and aspirations as emblematic of overall German military strategy. At a high level, Germany continuously sought an understanding with Britain over outstanding diplomatic issues.

The essential German strategic concern was on the land. Sea power was relevant because in the event of war against a coalition involving the UK, Germany knew that the British would follow their time honored strategy, honed in the Napoleonic Wars of naval blocade and support for continental allies. In order to deter or defeat the former, a fleet had to built capable of operating against British dreadnoughts in the North Sea.

The naval race did not trigger war or even British involvement. The mian triggers as pointed out before were a combination of irrational Austrian belligerance, German fears that the balance of land power was changing against them as Russia rearmed and Russian fecklessness in their willingness to back Serbia without fully considering the consequences. British involvement was up into the air until the invasion of Belgium allowed the minority of "war hawks" to railroad their colleagues into a declaration. The French pretty much had no choice, they couldn't just sit and watch Germany tear apart their only continental ally.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Fromtia


Well I agree with your remarks about trading with people rather than conquering them but I'm not sure they would have been better off in financial terms.The British didn't develop a colonial empire to conquer territory or to spread civilisation , religion or cricket.They developed their colonies at the expense of the original inhabitants of those places in order to enrich the British economy.Which they did , to a startling extent , some have even speculated that profits from British economic activity in India are responsible for enabling British industrialisation in the C19th.

As respectfully as possible I think that although nebulous desires toward might and power were possibly involved , the prime motive in Britains colonial exploits was profit.

The prime design might have been profit, but the truth is thAt after 1870, (during which the British empire doubled in size), I doubt that the colonies did indeed bring Britian much benefit, i.e. profit. During the next fourty years, Britain, despite having the by far the largest empire, got its ass whooped economically by US and Germany who didn't have much of an empire themselves. So obviously the economic value of British colonies is questionable.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Keynes
I'm not sure one can use Tirpitz's one views and aspirations as emblematic of overall German military strategy. At a high level, Germany continuously sought an understanding with Britain over outstanding diplomatic issues.

The essential German strategic concern was on the land. Sea power was relevant because in the event of war against a coalition involving the UK, Germany knew that the British would follow their time honored strategy, honed in the Napoleonic Wars of naval blocade and support for continental allies. In order to deter or defeat the former, a fleet had to built capable of operating against British dreadnoughts in the North Sea.

The naval race did not trigger war or even British involvement. The mian triggers as pointed out before were a combination of irrational Austrian belligerance, German fears that the balance of land power was changing against them as Russia rearmed and Russian fecklessness in their willingness to back Serbia without fully considering the consequences. British involvement was up into the air until the invasion of Belgium allowed the minority of "war hawks" to railroad their colleagues into a declaration. The French pretty much had no choice, they couldn't just sit and watch Germany tear apart their only continental ally.

Exactly, Tirpits does not equal German Government. I argue that prior to 1904, Germany had no intention of confronting the British and they built their fleet for pretty much the same reasons as US and Japan. Afterwards, they DID begin to target Britain, but this was pretty natural given that Britain has joined the Entente - you certainly can't blame them for that.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


What does all of this mean? The construction of the German Fleet from 1897 to 1914 was a disruptive and aggressive act, not because the Germans built a fleet, but because the fleet was obviously built for the sole use of defeating England in a great naval battle in the North Sea & blockading the British Isles. No one objected to Germany building warships, but they did object to Germany building warships in a transparent attempt to destroy the naval supremacy of a nation that was not Germany's natural rival. It is the same as the Soviets putting nuclear missiles into Cuba in the early 1960s. That was an aggressive and destabilizing act, & so was Tirpitz's Naval Plans. No one objected prior to 1897 to Germany building a fleet to secure its sea communications and overseas trade, like France, Russia, Italy, etc. The German Fleet after 1897 was never built to defend anything, but to attack England. It was aggressive, plain and simple.

Also, you say that I am just repeating the traditional viewpoint reiterated by the victors. The victors do tend to write the history, but one of the most important historians to lay the blame for the First World War on Germany was the great Fritz Fishcher, whose works revolutionized the historiography of the issue and changed the face of the teaching & writing of history in Germany. Its one thing when the victors lay the blame on the defeated. It is another thing when the defeated tend to agree.



Germany did not attack in the 1890s because (a) there was no need to & (b) the waning influence of Bismarck & his diplomacy. Germany in the 1890s did not feel threatened. By 1914, they were quite paranoid about the "Slavs" and the traitorous English. In 1914, they were looking for an excuse to launch a pre-emptive war that would secure for them dominance in Europe, & they found it in Sarajevo.



Saying that German exports had reached 95% of the British, while accurate, does not matter to the question of German reliance on overseas trade. There are two key statistics here: reliance on imports and overseas investments. In this context, the first obviously refers to those imports, where food, raw materials, or finished goods, that would be necessary for a well-operating war economy. The second refers to the ability of a nation to run a trade deficit. If a country has a large amount of overseas investments and overseas capital, then it can use these investments to finance purchases in times of emergency.

In terms of imports, I don't have any statistics on the reliance of Germany on imports, but some conclusions can be drawn from the First World War. About 48% of pre-war German imports came from nations that would be enemy states in 1914. Germany, however, was able to find alternative sources of imports, from both Scandinavian states & border states. Also, the blockade was never complete on Germany. American trade with Germany was not severly impacted until the American declaration of war on Germany in early 1917.

However, the real German problem was an distinct lack of overseas investments to draw on. Britain was still by far the world's banker, and as such could draw on enormous overseas reserves when needed. Germany could not, & hence its efforts to run a trade deficit was hindered, causing significant budgetary problems.

The conclusion of all this is that Germany was not as reliant on overseas trade as you argue, in part because it had other options in 1914, & in part because it lacked the finances to do so.

I'll also reiterate that the blockade of Germany took four years to have a significant effect. A similar blockade of Britain would have brought Britain to its knees in six weeks. Yet another reason why the creation of the German Fleet was such a disruptive factor in European politics.



Germany was as preoccupied with Britain as they were with France & Russia, especially psychologically. They admired & hated the British, and both feared them and desired to destroy the British Empire. Yes, the Germans continued to express a desire to come to an understanding, but only on their terms. It would be like the Soviets saying that they wished to be friends with the Americans, if only the Americans would get rid of all of their nuclear weapons. That is not a real desire for an alliance. The British realized this by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century, & realized that Germany wanted to be a rival of England, not a friend. But I do agree that the German elites were foolish, & that they, and Germany, deserve the blame for the First World War.

What do you mean Germany didn't start the war in the 90s casue it didn't need to? If Germany indeed would be a super-agressive state bent on destroying the balance of power, than it would certainly have attacked the Russians in the 90s, cause a victory in the war would ensure their dominance of the continent.

I never argued that Germany was just as dependent on overseas trade as the British, I only said that they were more dependant than Russians or even French, thus the blockaded did hurt them, even though you are right, the effect was gradual.

BTW, Soviet missiles in Cuba were no less justified than US missiles in Turkey which have been confronting the Soviets since the early 50s. You seem to use the same standard for this situation as you do for Britain and Germany "Its ok for Britain to have a navy, but not for Germany; Its ok for US to place its missiles near USSR, but its not ok for USSR to do the same"

 

[unmerged(3016)]

Originally posted by Bourbon


The prime design might have been profit, but the truth is thAt after 1870, (during which the British empire doubled in size), I doubt that the colonies did indeed bring Britian much benefit, i.e. profit. During the next fourty years, Britain, despite having the by far the largest empire, got its ass whooped economically by US and Germany who didn't have much of an empire themselves. So obviously the economic value of British colonies is questionable.

Well it's worth looking at , I am sure that many of the colonies became less profitable over time , especially if you include the cost of defending them - the Royal Navy cost a pretty penny.The truth is they didn't bring Britain much profit or you doubt they didn't bring Britain much profit?I'm not clear on what you are saying.Similarly 'ass whooped economically' is a little difficult to interpret , although it does have a certain ring to it.Certainly both Germany and the US were economies that were growing at a tremendous rate , often ahead of Britain in some economic criteria in the 15 to 20 years before WW1 , the US was still a debtor nation though , it was during WW1 when Britain sold off all it's US assets that the US became a creditor.The economic value of British colonies is questionable of course , but not by the criteria you suggest , and it is by no means obvious.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

In the 90's, Germany didn't attack Russia because Russia didn't become an economic threat until French money started puring into the country. Before the influx of French money, the only export that Russia could claim was Ukranian Winter Wheat. This product was on the decline since Kansas Wheat was cheaper to grow, and the North Dakota/Minnesota Winter Wheat was of a higher quality than that of the Ukranian strain. Combine this with the fact that the U.S. had trade agreements with Western Europe, this made the Russian export economy very sparse.

The fleet-building program was just as much a social event for Germany as a political/diplomatic event. Since the Army was dominated by Junkers, the navy was an opportunity for the rich to get their children into the upper-levels of the military, since the navy officer corps became a very bourgeouis group. The Germans had every right to build the fleet, they just had ample warning from the British foreign office that the construction of a German fleet would eliminate the chances of an Anglo-German alliance.

Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to declare war on the entente during the first ten years of the century, but hesitated due to the delay in the construction of the Kiel canal, which would cause the fleet to be bottled up in the North Sea.(which is what happenned after the construction of the canal anyway)

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Building a big fleet was a foolish decision diplomatically but has no moral importance.
However, invading Belgium because it made the attack on France more convenient was fairly immoral. Come to that, the AH dow on Serbia was fairly disgraceful, not worthy of a "blank cheque".

 

[unmerged(6964)]

There are a lot of posts here saying "why shouldn't Germany have a navy the size of Britain's????!!! They had every right to!". Well yes and... no. There existed at this time a little concept called the "balance of power". The British were able to maintain a large navy without upsetting the balance because they maintained, in notable contrast, a very SMALL army. The Germans had a massive army - in fact the land based version of Britain's dominance at sea. This too was reasonably ok. But when they decided they wanted to maintain the most powerful continental army AND rival the British in sea power it upset the balance. If the British had started to enlarge their army and conscript along German lines they would have had the same effect.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon
The prime design might have been profit, but the truth is thAt after 1870, (during which the British empire doubled in size), I doubt that the colonies did indeed bring Britian much benefit, i.e. profit. During the next fourty years, Britain, despite having the by far the largest empire, got its ass whooped economically by US and Germany who didn't have much of an empire themselves. So obviously the economic value of British colonies is questionable.

The colonies did give Britain some benefit through the First World War. For example, having easy access to Canadian wheat ensured that Britain could never have its food sources cut off by anything other than a direct blockade. Also, the Empire was a major destination of British investment, which could be turned around to support a trade deficit during wartime. Nearly 50% of British overseas investment was within the Empire. Also, over 50% of British exports were to destinations outside Europe & North America. By comparison, the German percentage was 17%. The Empire was important; not overwhelmingly important, but it was a factor.

Also, Britain did not get "its ass whooped" economically by the US & Germany. The British economy continued to expanded constantly prior to 1914, & by 1914 it was still, by any set of figures I have ever seen, was still the leading exporting nation. Also, the British were still far and away the world's banker, a very important factor. Yes, the Americans & Germans were catching up to the British, but they had still a bit more to go to surpass the British.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon


Exactly, Tirpits does not equal German Government. I argue that prior to 1904, Germany had no intention of confronting the British and they built their fleet for pretty much the same reasons as US and Japan. Afterwards, they DID begin to target Britain, but this was pretty natural given that Britain has joined the Entente - you certainly can't blame them for that.

Tirpitz was the most important military individual & strategic thinker in Germany from the elder von Moltke to the First World War. From 1897 to 1913, Tirpitz's views on Germany's strategic position & its military goals dominated German thinking. Wilhelm II liked the army, but he loved the navy. His favourite theorist was Alfred Mahan, not someone like Clauswitz. The most important pressure group in Germany pre-1914 was the German Navy League, followed by groups that were as strident in support of gaining an empire by force as they were in denouncing the "lazy nation of shopkeepers." Tirpitz's views, as set forth in his memorandum of 1897, drove Germany military policy until almost the beginning of the First World War. Tirpitz's words are clear and unequivocal. The Navy, from 1897, was designed to be a dagger at the throat of Britain, and nothing else. The Kaiser fully endorsed the views set out therein. The US & Japan did not build their fleets for the sole purpose of defeating Britain in the North Sea; the Germans did. German naval hostility far preceded the British move into the Entente. It caused the British move towards the French. It was not a "natural" response to the British, as you put it. The construction of the German Fleet from 1897 onwards was a deliberately provocative and aggressive act. Tirpitz admitted as much. Indeed, the fact that the it was an aggressive act was one of the reasons in favour of his plan. The Germans were being purposely aggressive & provocative, and Wilhelm wanted it that way.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon
You seem to use the same standard for this situation as you do for Britain and Germany "Its ok for Britain to have a navy, but not for Germany; Its ok for US to place its missiles near USSR, but its not ok for USSR to do the same"

I have never said that Germany was not entitled to have a navy. Every major European power had a navy, as was their right. Germany had a navy prior to 1897. However, Germany did much more than build a new navy from 1897 onwards. They built a navy designed for the sole purpose of destroying the Royal Navy, at a time when there was no reason in the world for Britian to go to war with Germany. They did not build a fleet to protect their shipping. They did not build a fleet to defend their colonies. They did not even build a fleet designed to seize Britain's colonies. They deliberately provoked Britain, & pushed her towards France & Russia. Germany must bear the responsibilities for their actions in building such a destabilizing fleet.