Is Germany to blame for World War I

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


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.

No way. By 19914 US GDP was almost three times that of Britain, so I do not see how Britain was top dog economically just cause it was an investor nation and because it had more exports (right now Germany expots almost as much as US - does it make it an economic powerhouse comparable to US?). Along similiar lines, German GPD has surpassed the British aroun 1910 as well. They produced twice as much still, dominated the newer industries (such as chemicals), and almost caught up to Britain exportwise. So I do not see how they had a bit more to go to surpass the British. As WWI showed, Germany was more powerful economically, because without US help economically, British war effort after 1916 would have been severely damaged, while the German war machine funcitoned pretty well till 1918, despite the blockade.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Fromtia


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.

US is a debtor nation right now, but it is still the undisputed #1 economic power.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


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.

As I have said before, Germany was desperate to keep Britain neutral in the inevitable European war, so i do not see how they were planning to deliberately prove them.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Top Cat
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.

It's a common misperception but the German army wasn't that big before WWI. They didn't mobilize anywhere near the proportion of available manpower that France did and their army was obviously a good smaller than Russia. The budgetary and administrative realities of the Reich limited the funding and mobilization; hence the growth of the Naval and Army "Leagues" aimed at achieving structural changes in war finance. This however had not been acheived by 1914. The difficult position of Germany on the land was what led to the emphasis on preventative war planning. Ironically the war might not have occurred had Germany been as strong on the land as Top Cat indicates.

Tirpitz - well its easy to selectively quote certain people and theorists. Tirpitz was anti-England, Schlieffen/Moltke the Younger and the very influential General Staff focused on France. The Kaiser was confused and the foreign ministry often pursued a foreign policy aimed at reconciliation with Britain and settlement of colonial disputes. The SDP-dominated parliament, who controlled the purse strings of the Reich, was generally anti-militarist in orientation and wanted peaceful relations with the UK. The Naval Race was basically over by 1912 (with clear British lead) and tensions with Britain were actually falling in the couple of years before the war.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

The German Army was based on a large and active reserve system though. The French Army was large but the Germans had the edge in terms of heavy artillery (though oddly heavy artillery was one thing Austria Hungary did best [cos of the Skoda works]) and technology generally. Germany's army was massive compared to the British one and was also probably the most modern on the continent. Certainly if one had to pick out in terms of the army, who was THE land power in continental Europe Germany would be the one to go for. This was also how it was seen at the time, not just in retrospect.

 

[Keynes]

Germany was slightly > France in land force but a good deal less when Russia was included. Of course, German reserves and quality made up some of the gap but the perception was that Germany would fall far beyond the Franco-Russian alliance and become very vulnerable on land once Russian railway and army modernization was complete.

 

[unmerged(3004)]

There's a saying: Where two fight, two are to blame. Wo I is the best example of this.

I personaly like best the words of Blackadder: "We ruled two-third of the world, while all the Germans had, was a little sausagefactory in Tanganyika."

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Hehe. Well when I signed up to do history one of the first things my class was told was "For GOD's sake DON'T go quoting films like Ghandi or TV shows like Blackadder as though they were historical fact."

Blakadder is one of the funniest comedy creations ever but it's scarcely a paragon of historical accuracy.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Keynes
Germany was slightly > France in land force but a good deal less when Russia was included. Of course, German reserves and quality made up some of the gap but the perception was that Germany would fall far beyond the Franco-Russian alliance and become very vulnerable on land once Russian railway and army modernization was complete.

Very good point. Germany's power vis-a-vis the Entente Powers was declining, & this is why they decided to start a European-wide war in 1914. They started it from a position of fear & weakness, not strength.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon


No way. By 19914 US GDP was almost three times that of Britain, so I do not see how Britain was top dog economically just cause it was an investor nation and because it had more exports (right now Germany expots almost as much as US - does it make it an economic powerhouse comparable to US?). Along similiar lines, German GPD has surpassed the British aroun 1910 as well. They produced twice as much still, dominated the newer industries (such as chemicals), and almost caught up to Britain exportwise. So I do not see how they had a bit more to go to surpass the British. As WWI showed, Germany was more powerful economically, because without US help economically, British war effort after 1916 would have been severely damaged, while the German war machine funcitoned pretty well till 1918, despite the blockade.

First, being an investor nation & having more exports is a significant component in the overall strength of a given economy, especially when that economy has to rapidly adjust to new situations, such as during wartime. Here are some relevant figures:

Per Capita Product, 1910 US$ of 1970:
UK 1302
Belgium 1110
Netherlands 952
Switzerland 992
Germany 958
France 883
Sweden 763
Italy 548

Shares in World Export:

UK 13.9%
Germany 13.1%
US 12.9%
France 7.2%

Index of Manufacturing Per Head of Population, 1913 (USA=100)

UK 90
Belgium 73
Germany 64
Switzerland 64
Sweden 50
France 46

The sum of these figures show that, in some areas, the American economy had surpassed the British economy, although not in exports. The German economy had closed the gap with the British economy, but had not surpassed it. Yes, alot of the German success was based in "new" industries like chemicals, but the British were competitive in them as well. Here are some figures for the British trade in electrical goods:

Annual Export Averages, in Millions of Pounds
1898-1902 2.79
1903-1906 2.83
1911-1913 6.38

Thus, British electrical goods remained competitive on the world market through 1914. Again, the British economy remained the strongest in Europe, albeit by a slim margin over the Germans.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon


As I have said before, Germany was desperate to keep Britain neutral in the inevitable European war, so i do not see how they were planning to deliberately prove them.

Germany was not "desperate" to keep Britain neutral in any European war. The Germans knew that invading Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan was likely to cause the British to side with the French. They just didn't care. They believed that they would be in Paris before the British could intervene. They were perfectly willing to provoke a war with Britain, if in the process they attained the desired complete victory over France.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


First, being an investor nation & having more exports is a significant component in the overall strength of a given economy, especially when that economy has to rapidly adjust to new situations, such as during wartime. Here are some relevant figures:

Per Capita Product, 1910 US$ of 1970:
UK 1302
Belgium 1110
Netherlands 952
Switzerland 992
Germany 958
France 883
Sweden 763
Italy 548

Shares in World Export:

UK 13.9%
Germany 13.1%
US 12.9%
France 7.2%

Index of Manufacturing Per Head of Population, 1913 (USA=100)

UK 90
Belgium 73
Germany 64
Switzerland 64
Sweden 50
France 46

The sum of these figures show that, in some areas, the American economy had surpassed the British economy, although not in exports. The German economy had closed the gap with the British economy, but had not surpassed it. Yes, alot of the German success was based in "new" industries like chemicals, but the British were competitive in them as well. Here are some figures for the British trade in electrical goods:

Annual Export Averages, in Millions of Pounds
1898-1902 2.79
1903-1906 2.83
1911-1913 6.38

Thus, British electrical goods remained competitive on the world market through 1914. Again, the British economy remained the strongest in Europe, albeit by a slim margin over the Germans.

First of all, your statistics for GDP per head do not include US, which already surpassed Britain even in that respect by 1910. Secondly, Germany was slightly behind in per capita aspects, but having a population of more than one and a half times that of Britain, their overall GDP was bigger. Thirdly, as I've said before, exports are important, but not THAT important - otherwise US right now would be nothing special, since German and Japanese exports are almost as large. And from what I've read, Britain was somewhat competitve in the newer industries, but it did not rival the sucess of US and Germany. And the thing is British leders knew that their country is being eclipsed as their quotes from the Edwardian period show. For example "Soon, we will not be able to hold our proper place with US, Russia, and probably Germany. We will be thrust aside by the sheer weight"

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


Germany was not "desperate" to keep Britain neutral in any European war. The Germans knew that invading Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan was likely to cause the British to side with the French. They just didn't care. They believed that they would be in Paris before the British could intervene. They were perfectly willing to provoke a war with Britain, if in the process they attained the desired complete victory over France.

Germany was willing to RISK British involvement, but they certainly preferred to avoid it. Their ambassodors in London have tried for a decade to obtain a guarantee of British neutrality. My point is that Germany looked at France as Russia as enemies, and Britain as a potential enemy that hopefulyl will not get involved in the next war. They were not specifically aiming for Britain.

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

About the GNP figures, things might look a bit more favourable for Britain if the economies of the Dominions are included. In the long run these become totally separate countries, but in 1914 the declaration of war automatically included India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Their contribution to the war was immense and should be remembered.

I'm not quibbling with the premise that Britain was in relative decline here, 40 million people on a small island can't remain top dog forever.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon


First of all, your statistics for GDP per head do not include US, which already surpassed Britain even in that respect by 1910. Secondly, Germany was slightly behind in per capita aspects, but having a population of more than one and a half times that of Britain, their overall GDP was bigger. Thirdly, as I've said before, exports are important, but not THAT important - otherwise US right now would be nothing special, since German and Japanese exports are almost as large. And from what I've read, Britain was somewhat competitve in the newer industries, but it did not rival the sucess of US and Germany. And the thing is British leders knew that their country is being eclipsed as their quotes from the Edwardian period show. For example "Soon, we will not be able to hold our proper place with US, Russia, and probably Germany. We will be thrust aside by the sheer weight"

You are right, my GDP per capita stats didn't include the US, as my source didn't have them, although I certainly think that the US had surpassed the British in that field by 1914. And you are right that Edwardian leaders were aware that Britain was in relative decline, because they were. They were not, though, in absolute decline. My argument, however, was that they were still the most significant exporting & investing economy in the world, which are important factors for an economy to endure a major disruption, such as wartime. Also, Richard Hakluyt makes a very good point about the economic value of the British dominions, to say nothing of the value of Dominion & Empire troops to the British war effort. Finally, one needs to keep in mind that Britain had no tariffs on foreign goods, while the US & the Germans made extensive use of tariffs & export subsidies. If there had been a level playing field, the British economy, especially in exports, would likely have done even better.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Bourbon



Germany was willing to RISK British involvement, but they certainly preferred to avoid it. Their ambassodors in London have tried for a decade to obtain a guarantee of British neutrality. My point is that Germany looked at France as Russia as enemies, and Britain as a potential enemy that hopefulyl will not get involved in the next war. They were not specifically aiming for Britain.

The German Ambassador in London did try to gain a guarantee of British neutrality, but the German Ambassador was politically a non-entity in Germany, & his advice and suggestions were rarely followed, as he advocated compromise with the British, which the Kaiser was completely unwilling to entertain (the British were willing to compromise, though). Germany was no less willing to risk war with Britain over Belgium than they were willing to risk war with Russia as part of the Schlieffen Plan. My argument has been that the German Fleet, as planned and constructed, was specifically aimed at Britain, & was designed to be used in wartime, not just as a diplomatic bargaining chip.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


You are right, my GDP per capita stats didn't include the US, as my source didn't have them, although I certainly think that the US had surpassed the British in that field by 1914. And you are right that Edwardian leaders were aware that Britain was in relative decline, because they were. They were not, though, in absolute decline. My argument, however, was that they were still the most significant exporting & investing economy in the world, which are important factors for an economy to endure a major disruption, such as wartime. Also, Richard Hakluyt makes a very good point about the economic value of the British dominions, to say nothing of the value of Dominion & Empire troops to the British war effort. Finally, one needs to keep in mind that Britain had no tariffs on foreign goods, while the US & the Germans made extensive use of tariffs & export subsidies. If there had been a level playing field, the British economy, especially in exports, would likely have done even better.

I never said the British economy was in absolute decline. Just like the French, it was growing, but not as fast as others. And yes, Britain had less tarrifs, but at the same time had an advantage in that it had by far the largest colonial empire which favoured homemade products, so the playing field was made both ways. Actually, by 1914 German exports had surpassed British exports in every major market save for the British Empire itself and Latin America. Hence, the "Made in Germany" product scare.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


The German Ambassador in London did try to gain a guarantee of British neutrality, but the German Ambassador was politically a non-entity in Germany, & his advice and suggestions were rarely followed, as he advocated compromise with the British, which the Kaiser was completely unwilling to entertain (the British were willing to compromise, though). Germany was no less willing to risk war with Britain over Belgium than they were willing to risk war with Russia as part of the Schlieffen Plan. My argument has been that the German Fleet, as planned and constructed, was specifically aimed at Britain, & was designed to be used in wartime, not just as a diplomatic bargaining chip.

German fleet was designed IN CASE war with Britain would occur (after 1904 that is), but Germany had no intention of declaring war on Britain itself and hoped it would stay neutrall in the future conflicts. And Britain was not really willing to compromise outside of Germany giving up on its naval program and getting some Portuguese colonies in return.

 

[unmerged(3360)]

For the german fleet being "a knife at the throat of britain"

What I´ve read about the fleet race (from a german author I admit) the german fleet was aimed against britain in a case of war but....

1.) Germany never intended to declare war on britain but germany could not be sure about the other way round

2.) If she hadn´t built it she would have been completely dependant on the mercy of britain.
The latter would have had every freedom it could want to decide if it wanted to go to war against germany, for there would have been no risk at all for the british to do that.
And I don´t know if britain would not have had declared war on germany a little later than 1914 for economical reasons hadn´t the WWI happened. ( I mean a limited sea/colonial war, not the landwarstuff that happened).

3.) The german navy was built to keep the english channel open for german trade, not to starve britain out of a war, for it would never have been strong enough for that.


To number 3: this was the plan, as we all know, in 1914 the german navy wasn´t (yet) big enough to do it.

 

[unmerged(5190)]

The Kaisar had too much power in his bumbling, inept hands, thanks to Bismark, who realized too late that the constitution he designed gave too much power to the Kaisar. The Reichstag could only vote on bills put before it. There was no constitutional development in Germany between 1870 - 1914, worse in giving Germany 44 years of peace People after wwI looked back longingly to the good old days of the Kaisar. (these posts are supposed to be polemical)