The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan

[Beagá]

So let me get this straight: if I choose not to read a book by any given historian, I'm being a bigot? You don't know what bigotry means, Beaga. Have you read the book this thread is about? I hope so, because logically if you haven't, you are a bigot.

Very much so, it's another of the main themes. She doesn't overweight it up does show that at some critical moments, politicians were at least influenced by public opinion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Here, some information for you since you lack the basics

You said you hate anything Guy X writes because he is Guy X.

I can´t say I´m bigoted as you because unlike YOU, I didn´t automatically dismiss the book you mentioned in your OP because it was written by guy Y. Seriously, get a grip on reality

Also, while you criticize Ferguson so much, the fact that you automatically dismiss a source becuase it´s from someone you hate makes you automatically a way, WAY worse historian than he is, due to your obvious bias. Get off your high horse.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Here, some information for you since you lack the basics

You said you hate anything Guy X writes because he is Guy X.

I can´t say I´m bigoted as you because unlike YOU, I didn´t automatically dismiss the book you mentioned in your OP because it was written by guy Y. Seriously, get a grip on reality

Also, while you criticize Ferguson so much, the fact that you automatically dismiss a source becuase it´s from someone you hate makes you automatically a way, WAY worse historian than he is, due to your obvious bias. Get off your high horse.

so just to recap

• I'm familiar with Niall Ferguson's works
• I dislike them
• I choose not to pay to read more of his works, which I dislike
• Therefore, I am a bigot

"Don't disagree with Niall Ferguson or you are a bigot on your high horse, Ralph. Also, you need to listen to the music of Skrillex and watch 2 1/2 Men because if you don't, you're a bigot. you can't choose which sources you are willing to listen to, that's bigoted".

I'm not going to continue this utterly ridiculous conversation, please stop with this ludicrous de-rail

 

[Beagá]

The problem is that you AUTOMATICALLY dismiss stuff just because it comes from him. You really think he NEVER said anything relevant/useful/logical? You don´t even know what he said in his book!

Churchill made that blunder at Gallipoli, so that means automatically EVERYTHING he was going to do later was bad? Not really, as history shows. I never said Ferguson didn´t say BS (just like I would never say YOU didn´t ever say BS, BTW ) But it shows extreme immaturity to dismiss people that way. Sorry.

Rest easy, I won´t reply to you ever again, because I know a lost cause when I see one. You might think your silly distortion above will fool people. it won´t. I made my point very clear Au revoir ciao adios.

 

[Andrelvis]

The problem is that you AUTOMATICALLY dismiss stuff just because it comes from him. You really think he NEVER said anything relevant/useful/logical? You don´t even know what he said in his book!

He just said that he isn't interested in reading it, not that it is not valid.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The notions of mobilisation and sending an army are completely different. That had been proven multiple times in the previous decade when countries (including Russia and Austria-Hungary) had mobilised without going to war. It's attempting to conflate the two which is the fallacy.

Not completely different. There were war plans tightly tied to the mobilisation schedules in every country. Mobilisation is effectively the beginning of a processus which is not by itself war, but which unavoidably leads to war unless forcibly stopped. So it is true that for purely logistical reasons there is some last chance to negotiate(and this short timeframe was used for negotiation by all GPs, including Germany), but this is for all intents and purposes negotiation with someone pointing his gun at you. The fact that countries repeatedly mobilised in the decade before the war shows how closely war was avoided every time, not that mobilisation was some kind of banal means of conducting foreign policy; in my view it was not.

In my mind there are two important considerations to regarding the Russian mobilisation.

The first is that Austria made explicit its commitment to destroy serbia, annex Belgrade and offer portions of its land to 'buy' the compliance of the other Balkan states on the 23rd July. It was only after this that Russia began to take action (note action, not posturing) to respond to this. Furthermore, it became clear on the 28th July that Austria was mobilising 12 out of its 16 Corps, far more than was required to deal with Serbia alone; the Russian order for full mobilisation was not given/confirmed until the 28th/30th July.

The second and probably most important consideration is the details of mobilisation. The average German soldier under mobilisation had to travel about 200 miles to his embarkation point; the Average Russian soldier had to travel nearly 700. Consider that in 2014, travelling 700 miles in Russia is a challenge - consider how much more difficult that was in 1914.

All of the Great European military leaders understood the importance of mobilisation promptly in the event of war. Given that the German War (Moltke's modification to the Schlieffen) plan was well known by Russia; Germany's offer of complete support to Austria; Austria's only consideration being how to annex/partition Serbia, I think that it is difficult to ascribe blame on Russia for wishing to ensure its forces were rapidly mobilised in the event of War.

 

[Amallric]

On the 23th of July, AH presents an ultimatum. It is not really a "commitment" to destroy Serbia because it allows a peaceful outcome if the ultimatum is accepted. Only the most unreasonable nationalist would claim that acceptance of the ultimatum would result in a "destruction" of Serbia. Russia ordered a partial mobilisation in reaction to this ultimatum without even waiting for the Serbian response. So it seems very wrong to me to claim like you're implying that Russia only took action after a war against Serbia became unavoidable.

Your second point is even more fallacious because the Russian order of full mobilisation had in fact nothing to do with the stance of Austria. The troops that were mobilised on the 23th were enough to deal with Austria; if Russia ordered a full mobilisation it was to counter the threat posed by Germany.

The second and probably most important consideration is the details of mobilisation. The average German soldier under mobilisation had to travel about 200 miles to his embarkation point; the Average Russian soldier had to travel nearly 700. Consider that in 2014, travelling 700 miles in Russia is a challenge - consider how much more difficult that was in 1914.

There is another aspect to this question though. The Russian army took longer to mobilise, but it was also much more operational than any other army whithout mobilisation. In the event of war, the size of the German army was scheduled to double over the peacetime size; for France the figure was around 75% iirc. But the Russian army was only expected to increase 30% with mobilisation: the bulk of the troops was to be the peacetime army, not the reservists. That's why the Russian army was able to undertake offensive actions before the estimated 40 days delay needed to mobilise.

 

[Easy-Kill]

On the 23th of July, AH presents an ultimatum. It is not really a "commitment" to destroy Serbia because it allows a peaceful outcome if the ultimatum is accepted. Only the most unreasonable nationalist would claim that acceptance of the ultimatum would result in a "destruction" of Serbia. Russia ordered a partial mobilisation in reaction to this ultimatum without even waiting for the Serbian response. So it seems very wrong to me to claim like you're implying that Russia only took action after a war against Serbia became unavoidable.

Your second point is even more fallacious because the Russian order of full mobilisation had in fact nothing to do with the stance of Austria. The troops that were mobilised on the 23th were enough to deal with Austria; if Russia ordered a full mobilisation it was to counter the threat posed by Germany.

According to Max Hastings's book 'Catastrophe'* - The final Austrian decision was made during a secret meeting at Berchtold's house on July 19th. The author who of the ultimatum (Baron Musulin) stated that it was written to 'astound the world with the eloquence of its accusation'. Hastings also suggests that the Austrian government was only really interested in two matters: 1) How to divide up Serbian Territory and 2) How to secure German help.

As for my second point being fallacious phallus; Germany had given Austria full support, and made no attempt to temper the words of the ultimatum (which they received a copy of the day before Serbia). I am sorry, but it isn't fallacious - the Tsar was even willing to moderate the mobilisation order following communications with the Kaiser on the 29th. Of course Russia wanted to counter the threat to Germany. The Schlieffen plan was well known, and the Russians were distinctly aware that they did not have the military power to counter Germany; the only way they could aver disaster would be the participation of France and the rapid mobilisation of troops. Russia, had promised to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia following the recent annexation of Bosnia by Austria. Austria decided to invade Serbia with this knowledge.

* While I appreciate many people may not like Hastings's interpretation of the facts, but they are presented as facts nonethe less.

 

[Amallric]

According to Max Hastings's book 'Catastrophe'* - The final Austrian decision was made during a secret meeting at Berchtold's house on July 19th. The author who of the ultimatum (Baron Musulin) stated that it was written to 'astound the world with the eloquence of its accusation'. Hastings also suggests that the Austrian government was only really interested in two matters: 1) How to divide up Serbian Territory and 2) How to secure German help.

I don't really understand what you mean by the "final decision". An ultimatum supposes two possible issues - the ultimatum being accepted and the ultimatum being rejected. What happened is the latter.

Germany had given Austria full support, and made no attempt to temper the words of the ultimatum (which they received a copy of the day before Serbia)

But when Serbia came up with a partial acceptance of the ultimatum Germany attempted to pressure Austria to deescalate.

I am sorry, but it isn't fallacious - the Tsar was even willing to moderate the mobilisation order following communications with the Kaiser on the 29th.

Germany addressed an ultimatum to Russia, asking for the mobilisation to be cancelled. Russia refused.

Of course Russia wanted to counter the threat to Germany. The Schlieffen plan was well known, and the Russians were distinctly aware that they did not have the military power to counter Germany; the only way they could aver disaster would be the participation of France and the rapid mobilisation of troops.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with this. By this logic you get nowhere. Germany wanted to counter the threat posed by the encirclement by England, France and Russia; France wanted to counter the threat posed by Germany, England wanted to counter the threat posed by the German fleet, Austria wanted to counter the threat posed by Serbian/Slavic nationalism. Any country always has some threats. Whatever.

 

[Andrelvis]

the Tsar was even willing to moderate the mobilisation order following communications with the Kaiser on the 29th.

The Czar was indeed willing to only partially mobilize the army (that is, only against Austria), but the military told him that that was not possible, so it was either no mobilization or full mobilization. He chose the latter.

 

[AegonVLLI]

germany mobilized and declared war on russia.

germany gave austria-hungary the blank check. germany expanded the war by invading france and belgium.

germany was responsible, by and large, for the war.

Austria-Hungary started it with the ultimatum.

Austria-Hungary refused a Serbian response with huge concessions on the Serbian part (many german leaders, even the Kaiser himself, thought that A-H got what it wanted and would be satisfied and calmed down, which cost them time).

Austrian-Hungarian leaders acted just stupid and thus started a war which the didn't want (they were terrified of a two-front war with Serbia and Italy and intended to secure its neutrality instead of caring about Russia).

So, why is Germany responsible? If the war was started by one nation, it was A-H, whereas the german offensive actions are just results of being in a war with its neighbours. Of course it wasn't just the responsibility of Austria alone, there were many different factors involved.
Every nation had to mobilise to defend itself, but also increased tensions with that act. So mobilising to defend yourself became a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, the actions of every government were unbelievable careless and slow, which prevented a quick deescalation. That every nation had a population in favour of a war and that the military of every country thought that a war was possible, decisive and quick also didn't help.

 

[Andrelvis]

Austria was just too afraid of Serbia becoming a "second Piedmont", so it acted stupid as AegonVILLI said. Of all the great powers, it was the one most endangered by an actual war.

 

[Henry IX]

The whole lead up to WWI reminds me of the lead up to a school yard fight and the apportioning of blame similar to the aftermath. With this in mind I present to you my schoolyard version of WWI:

There are 2 main gangs in school, the Central Powers and the Cordial Alliance. The central powers consist of Germany, the toughest kid in school, A-H who fairly big and strong but is known to be poor fighter and the new kid Italy. A-H and Germany do not trust Italy as he has been seen smoking with France behind the toilets. It turns out that they are right about this. The last member of the Central powers is Ottoman, who smokes, has asthma, ricketts and a complexion that would make the average nerd on an internet history forum wince. No one takes him seriously. The Alliance consists of France, who used to be the toughest kid in school until Germany beat the stuffing out of him last year, and Russia. Russia is big, fat and strong but does not know how to fight, depending on big haymakers to knock the other guy out. Britain has started hanging out with France recently, although he doesn't really like him much, because he is afraid of Germany. Britain does not like fighting and would much rather just intimidate the little kids into giving him their lunch money.

A-H decides he will nick Russia's little brother Serbia's lunch money after somebody hit A-H with a piece of thrown fruit and A-H decides to blame Serbia.
"Hey, why'd you throw this at me you little twerp? I think you'd better make this up to me now, an' I'm feeling hungry..."
Russia, seeing little Serbia about to start crying storms over and grabs A-H by the collar shouting "If you so much as touch 'im I'll f***ing do you"
A-H looks around nervously and sees Germany striding up. Germany thows an arm around A-H's shoulder an says "I've got your back mate. If any of these **** heads try anything I'll ****ing smash 'em.
A-H full of renewed confidance turns to Russia and grabs his collar back. Russia and A-H stand face to face going "Yeh go on.." "yeh I'll take you" "you wanna try something" "yeh?" "yeh?" YEH?"
France hearing the raised voices and eager to get some revenge on Germany runs over with fists raised. Germany, slight panicked by the sudden increase in tension suggest in a quiet voice that A-H should "maybe calm down a bit" but A-H is way to angry at this point and just ignores him. Germany turns to see Britain standing close by and geastures a question about whether he will get involved and Britain replies with a non-commital gesture which Germany assumes means he will not get involved. Taking the opportunity before France is actually ready for the fight, Germany throws a sucker punch right into Frances jaw. Outraged at this breach of Marquess of Queensberry rules Britain throws himself into the fray, and the fight is on for one and all.

In the end A-H is carried away unconscious, Ottoman has collapsed with a severe asthma attack after being punched in the solar plexus, Russia has retreated to the corner crying over a broken nose and Germany has been suspended from school. The 'winners' Britain and France, are both nursing a range of injuries and swearing that they would never let another fight like this happen again.

So, who's fault was it?

 

[makif130289]

The whole lead up to WWI reminds me of the lead up to a school yard fight and the apportioning of blame similar to the aftermath. With this in mind I present to you my schoolyard version of WWI:

There are 2 main gangs in school, the Central Powers and the Cordial Alliance. The central powers consist of Germany, the toughest kid in school, A-H who fairly big and strong but is known to be poor fighter and the new kid Italy. A-H and Germany do not trust Italy as he has been seen smoking with France behind the toilets. It turns out that they are right about this. The last member of the Central powers is Ottoman, who smokes, has asthma, ricketts and a complexion that would make the average nerd on an internet history forum wince. No one takes him seriously. The Alliance consists of France, who used to be the toughest kid in school until Germany beat the stuffing out of him last year, and Russia. Russia is big, fat and strong but does not know how to fight, depending on big haymakers to knock the other guy out. Britain has started hanging out with France recently, although he doesn't really like him much, because he is afraid of Germany. Britain does not like fighting and would much rather just intimidate the little kids into giving him their lunch money.

A-H decides he will nick Russia's little brother Serbia's lunch money after somebody hit A-H with a piece of thrown fruit and A-H decides to blame Serbia.
"Hey, why'd you throw this at me you little twerp? I think you'd better make this up to me now, an' I'm feeling hungry..."
Russia, seeing little Serbia about to start crying storms over and grabs A-H by the collar shouting "If you so much as touch 'im I'll f***ing do you"
A-H looks around nervously and sees Germany striding up. Germany thows an arm around A-H's shoulder an says "I've got your back mate. If any of these **** heads try anything I'll ****ing smash 'em.
A-H full of renewed confidance turns to Russia and grabs his collar back. Russia and A-H stand face to face going "Yeh go on.." "yeh I'll take you" "you wanna try something" "yeh?" "yeh?" YEH?"
France hearing the raised voices and eager to get some revenge on Germany runs over with fists raised. Germany, slight panicked by the sudden increase in tension suggest in a quiet voice that A-H should "maybe calm down a bit" but A-H is way to angry at this point and just ignores him. Germany turns to see Britain standing close by and geastures a question about whether he will get involved and Britain replies with a non-commital gesture which Germany assumes means he will not get involved. Taking the opportunity before France is actually ready for the fight, Germany throws a sucker punch right into Frances jaw. Outraged at this breach of Marquess of Queensberry rules Britain throws himself into the fray, and the fight is on for one and all.

In the end A-H is carried away unconscious, Ottoman has collapsed with a severe asthma attack after being punched in the solar plexus, Russia has retreated to the corner crying over a broken nose and Germany has been suspended from school. The 'winners' Britain and France, are both nursing a range of injuries and swearing that they would never let another fight like this happen again.

So, who's fault was it?

Very nice analogy but i think you underestimate Ottomans. Ottoman performance in WWI was actually well above the average. Ottomans who were humiliated before newly formed Balkan nations few years ago, managed to hold the British in Sinai and Palestine and finally in Syria until 1918. Ottomans won important defensive battles in the process ( For example Gaza battles ) and if it wasn't for Arab revolts which paralyzed Ottoman communication lines and provided mobile force for Entente, Ottomans may have hold even longer in the Middle East. Until the collapse of Syrian front in 1918, Ottoman front was stable, always making strategic withdrawals and resisting stubbornly against the British for every inch of soil.

British campaign at Iraq was a failure in the beginning. They captured Baghdad finally in March,1917, nearly 2.5 years after Ottoman entry to war. Gallipoli was an obvious defensive victory again. In the east, Russians obtained some territories because of grave mistakes of Enver Pasha but it was not a serious blow. I am not saying Ottomans were great in WWI, they didn't have any industrial base or a modern army like Germans. But despite all the setbacks, Ottomans performance was solid. Afterall, Ottomans were not a liability at all to Central Powers. Ottomans diverted substantial amounts of British resources away from Europe and kept them busy until the very end of war. Ottoman pashas hoped and expected Germany to win the war in the West while they put a good fight everywhere.

The most dramatic failure of Ottomans in WWI was the Sultan's Jihad call. Ottomans expected to awake millions of muslims in Egypt and India with that call but in the end even its Arabic population turned against it.

 

[soda7777777]

I got this book today, and am thoroughly enjoying it. Thanks RRW for the recommendation.

 

[Henry IX]

The British did not take the Ottomans seriously. That proved a big mistake. Even the Germans thought they would only be of marginal assistance. No one in 1914 thought that they could sustain a serious war against a great power. The solid performance of the Ottoman army was a suprise.

 

[StephenT]

The Ottomans did indeed do very well, - surprisingly well considering the opinion of them that was generally held at the time.

However, I have to say that "winning defensive victories" in the context of WW1 is not exactly the most difficult thing ever...

 

[Easy-Kill]

I don't really understand what you mean by the "final decision". An ultimatum supposes two possible issues - the ultimatum being accepted and the ultimatum being rejected. What happened is the latter.

However, the wording of the ultimatum, if accepted would have allowed Austrian troops to occupy Serbia and de-facto annex the territory? It was written in a way that would not be accepted.

But when Serbia came up with a partial acceptance of the ultimatum Germany attempted to pressure Austria to deescalate.

This is incorrect. The leading figures in the German Government all acted in a disparate fashion. Bethmann-Hollweg was strongly influencing the Austrians to reject the Serbian acceptance, even to the extent of manipulating British communications to support this. Moltke was ardent that the German army needed to strike at Russia before it could modernise and pose a threat to Germany and thus advised Hoetzendorf to use his influence to ensure Austria didn't acquiesce. Kaiser Wilhelm was the only one who actually voiced (though note this was not direct pressure, but an open and ill-worded comment) that the Austrians should accept the Serbian acceptance, while simultaneously advising his CoS and Chancellor to push for war and trying to play the strong man of Europe.

Germany addressed an ultimatum to Russia, asking for the mobilisation to be cancelled. Russia refused.

In my opinion this was one of Russia's (and the Entente's) only major aggressive moves in this crisis. However, with Austria mobilising more forces than necessary to defeat Serbia, Serbia being a protectorate of Russia, the Austro-German strategy of clumsy expansion into the Balkans and Germany's well known war plans against Russia in the event of such a crisis, I find it difficult to apportion blame to Russia for acting defensively. Furthermore, leading figures in Germany were itching for a fight with Russia and they were the ones who took the step of declaring war.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with this. By this logic you get nowhere. Germany wanted to counter the threat posed by the encirclement by England, France and Russia; France wanted to counter the threat posed by Germany, England wanted to counter the threat posed by the German fleet, Austria wanted to counter the threat posed by Serbian/Slavic nationalism. Any country always has some threats. Whatever.

What I am saying is that Germany had been trying to expand its influence - it was not happy with a status quo within Europe and wanted to command a dominant position. This domination came at the expense of Russia in the Balkans (Russia's principal trade route was through the Dardanells), at the expense of Britain (Suez and Antwerp being key gateways for Britain's trade with Europe and the East) and with France was threatened by a dominant land power in central Europe whose well published/established war aims would lead to war and occupation in France's principal industrial/coal producing areas.

Germany did not want to counter anything. They felt that their rightful place in the world was the domination of European and World affairs much as Britain and France had done so in previous centuries. Germany was not content with the status quo and sought to carve the Great(er) powers and take some chunks for themselves. Ultimately, Belgium stands as a testament to this - One of the founding principals of modern democracies has been the protection of smaller states. Germany was acting like a 19th century colonial power in a 20th century democratic Europe.

Though, I do not think that we will get anywhere with this discussion. We can of course continue to trade facts and interpretations of those facts, but not even the brightest scholars of the last century have managed to interpret these facts in an agreeable way.

 

[Andrelvis]

Germany was acting like a 19th century colonial power in a 20th century democratic Europe.

That's hard to believe, since none of the European great powers were really democracies, and most of them were colonial powers.

 

[Easy-Kill]

That's hard to believe, since none of the European great powers were really democracies, and most of them were colonial powers.

In 1689 in the UK, King James II was 'removed' from power by parliament, inviting Mary II and her husband William of Orange to take their place. What is pivotal about that point is that this introduced a constitutional monarchy, with parliament insisting that almost all executive power reside with them. Most importantly was the transfer of powers of taxation to an elected parliament. With the English Parliament holding principal control over the military following the English Civil war, this meant that the principal executive power resided with an elected parliament.

If by democracy you mean universal suffrage (which I would equate to modern, not 20th century democracy then yes you are correct. The Victorian and Edwardian saw the urbanisation of many western nations. In Britain (and possibly other countries) which in turn led to significant poverty. However, by the end of the 19th century, social responsibility and liberal politics had become well established - there was now a moral obligation for the wealthy in the nation to contribute to the poorest (though this would take nearly another 50 years to truly establish itself). This social responsibility also bled into international politics of the UK and was the one if the main reasons the German invasion of Belgium turned a divided neutral nation into an interventionist one.

 

[Andrelvis]

If by democracy you mean universal suffrage

Yes, by democracy I mean exactly universal suffrage. A relatively small percentage of people in the British state had civil rights (think of all those in British India and British Africa), and an even smaller percentage could vote. In the French state the situation was similar. In the German and Austrian states, a larger percentage had civil rights and voted, but their votes had much less practical consequence, as the parliaments had little power. Russia was rather autocratic.

The main difference between Anglo-French and German thought of the period is not one of democracy vs. imperialism, but rather that the Anglo-French imagined a different set of rules for imperial expansion overseas and for the European territories, while for Germany (and Russia) the same set of rules applied to imperial expansion in both areas.