# Resolved: Germany was the aggressor against France in WWI **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2026, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000 "2026-09-11T20:57:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/21 "2026-09-12T22:58:41Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Mobilization was not an act of war. Full stop. It was considered so in that period. “Full stop”. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Please quote the part of the Quora answer that actually says Russian mobilization was an act of war. **why was Russian mobilization tantamount to an act of war,** > [@Andy\_L](#): > > but if mobilizing forces is an act of war then the US went to war with the USSR in 1963 1963 is not 1914. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > It was provocative, indicating that Russia would defend its ally (the ally that had capitulated to Austrohungary’s ultimatum), Serbia did not capitulate- at least not fully- [Ultimatum of July 23, 1914 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_of_July_23,_1914). > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Well, that’s one way of avoiding uncomfortable facts. Odd that to this day you’ve never attempted to refute them in the original forum where the post appeared. Not “uncomfortable” and not “facts”. Is that poster here so i can debate them, or do you just have a straw man? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > So you’re taking one author’s interpretation, which you’ve mangled, while failing to address its deficiencies or explaining why it’s “peculiar” to agree with the overwhelming consensus of historians Not mangled, and the “overwhelming consensus” is from writers who were are in the Allied nations. Are you surprised a British Historian would support their side of the story? I am not. “The winners write the histories”. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Germany was prohibited by freely signed treaties from violating Belgium (and Luxembourg’s) neutrality. They did it anyway Yes, they did. But that was not a cause of the Great War. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Britain was obligated by treaty to enforce Belgium (and Luxembourg’s) neutrality Cite? Britain did have a treaty to not attack those nations, old treaties, sure. You are talking about the 1839 Treaty of London. [Treaty of London (1839) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)) > Under the treaty, the European powers recognised and guaranteed the independence and neutrality of [Belgium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium "Belgium")… According to the historian [Christopher Clark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clark "Christopher Clark"), Britain’s decision to go to war was heavily influenced by fears that if they did not help France resist a German invasion it could usher in a period of German hegemony in Western Europe. Clark points out that the British cabinet agreed in a meeting on 29 July 1914 that although Britain was a signatory to the Treaty of London, the terms of the treaty did not oblige the British to oppose a German invasion of Belgium with military force.[[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#cite_note-23) According to Isabel V. Hull, [Annika Mombauer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annika_Mombauer "Annika Mombauer") wrote “Few historians would still maintain that the ‘[rape of Belgium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium "Rape of Belgium")’ was the real motive for Britain’s declaration of war on Germany”. Instead, the role of Belgian neutrality is variously interpreted as an excuse used to mobilise public opinion, to provide embarrassed radicals in the cabinet with the justification for abandoning the principal [_[sic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic "Sic")_] of pacifism and thus staying in office, or – in the more conspiratorial versions – as cover for naked imperial interests".[[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#cite_note-24) So yeah, there was an old treaty, but the British did not think they had to use military force to uphold it. They did so for their own British political objectives. And GB has many times casually ignored Neutral nations being invaded- Finland by the USSR and then Poland by the USSR - and GB had a treaty with Poland saying that they would declare war on anyone who attacked Poland- so they declared on German and ignored the USSR.. Not to mention GB has attacked Neutral nations themselves- if it suited their objectives. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/22 "2026-09-12T23:39:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > Please quote the part of the Quora answer that actually says Russian mobilization was an act of war. > > **why was Russian mobilization tantamount to an act of war,** Sentences that start with “why” are usually questions, not answers. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > but if mobilizing forces is an act of war then the US went to war with the USSR in 1963 > > 1963 is not 1914. Somehow you missed the part about A-H mobilizing in 1912 and in July 1914. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > It was provocative, indicating that Russia would defend its ally (the ally that had capitulated to Austrohungary’s ultimatum), > > Serbia did not capitulate- at least not fully- > > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum\_of\_July\_23,\_1914](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_of_July_23,%5C_1914) . Please provide the quote from this article that you think justifies your statement. It’s not my job to read through your cite to see what you’re talking about > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > Britain was obligated by treaty to enforce Belgium (and Luxembourg’s) neutrality > > Cite? Britain did have a treaty to not attack those nations, old treaties, sure. You are talking about the 1839 Treaty of London. And Germany had a treaty not to attack them too. But they did. Yes, old treaties still apply even after time has passed, just like old laws do. Here’s a little history of how Germany, France and Britain all held firm on Belgium neutrality up to[1914](https://scottmanning.com/content/belgiums-neutrality-was-more-than-a-scrap-of-paper/). Britain made its commitment to Belgian neutrality clear in 1885: > In 1885, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck reviewed his options in the event of another war with France. Bismark asked Britain, “Would England fight if Belgium was attacked?” The response was “No doubt, if she had an ally.”[5](https://scottmanning.com/content/belgiums-neutrality-was-more-than-a-scrap-of-paper/#footnote_5_5319 "Luigi Albertini, The Origins of the War of 1914, vol. 3. (New York: Enigma Books, 2005), 415.") Two years later, when France and Germany were on the brink of yet another war, both countries sent assurances to Belgium that her neutrality would not be violated. Weird thing for France and Germany to do in 1885, if Britain just made up its commitment to Belgium in 1914. And again in 1912 > Great Britain’s guarantee of Belgium was not just against German violation. In November of 1912, France reviewed the possibility of violating Belgium’s neutrality in the event of a war with Germany. When they asked Grey for Great Britain’s opinion, he said “the British Government would then be called upon to defend the neutrality of that country.”[9](https://scottmanning.com/content/belgiums-neutrality-was-more-than-a-scrap-of-paper/#footnote_9_5319 "Albertini, Origins, 432.") After receiving such a firm stance from their ally, France renounced all ideas for such a maneuver. What a surprise it was and how villainous that Britain treated Germany the same way it treated its Entente partner, France. Poor Germany thought that Britain would treat its treaties the same way Germany treated its treaties. Classic mistake. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/23 "2026-09-13T00:00:36Z")
You know what? Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/24 "2026-09-13T00:14:49Z")
P.S. If (for the sake of argument) the invasion of Belgium was only an excuse for Britain to go to war with Germany, because they always intended to go to war with Germany, then German war planners (who planned a war without Britain involved) and diplomats (who mocked the idea that Britain would get involved even if Belgium was invaded) were fools. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/25 "2026-09-13T01:34:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > > > Mobilization was not an act of war. Full stop. > > It was considered so in that period. “Full stop”. We know in that era it was possible to respond to another country’s mobilization by mobilizing your military to deploy near your border without any actual act of war against an adversary. We know that because France did it. It came at the cost of fighting the entire war on their own soil (although their poor military strategy early made that worse). However, France understood going to war against the whole world because you botched the diplomacy and rushed in guns blazing is a worse outcome than either fighting with strong allies on your side or even avoiding or limiting the scope of a war you are involved in. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/26 "2026-09-13T01:42:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Sleepwalkers provided said evidence. > > But it does not really make any difference. France and Russia made no secret of the fact that as soon as Russia Mobilized, so would France and they would attack Germany from both directions What is the specific claim (i.e. who actually declared war when, and what specifically was the after the fact fabrication) and what is the evidence for this. Lets go back to Belgium with your mobilization logic. If mobilizationcwas literally an act of war, then just by mobilizing forces in the direction of Belgium, Germany had already violated Belgian neutrality so France was within their rights to invade Belgium preemptively themselves. I of course think this is ridiculous - I think if another country deploys forces to their border an adversary hasxthe right to deploy their own forces to their border, not actually declarecwar and cross it. If France had thought along the lines in the above paragraph, and Germany simply used the deployment to bait that resonse in order to diplomatically isolate France, France would be the aggressor and nit Germany. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/27 "2026-09-13T03:42:58Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Somehow you missed the part about A-H mobilizing in 1912 and in July 1914. > > DrDeth: > > Andy\_L: In 1912 it was in response to the first Balkan war. The Mobilization forced a diplomatic ending of the crisis. In 1914 it was to go to war against Serbia- which did commit an act or war vs AH. No one denied that. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Please provide the quote from this article that you think justifies your statement. It’s not my job to read through your cite to see what you’re talking about Then why state Serbia had capitulated? But here ya go, this is the chapter title of my link. > **Serbian response: Partial compliance with Austro-Hungarian demands** > [@Andy\_L](#): > > And Germany had a treaty not to attack them too. But they did. yeah, I think we have covered that over and over here. **Germany Attacked Belgium.** Got that. We all agree? > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Britain made its commitment to Belgian neutrality clear in 1885: Did you even read my post above? > Under the treaty, the European powers recognised and guaranteed the independence and neutrality of [Belgium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium "Belgium")… According to the historian [Christopher Clark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clark "Christopher Clark"), Britain’s decision to go to war was heavily influenced by fears that if they did not help France resist a German invasion it could usher in a period of German hegemony in Western Europe. Clark points out that the British cabinet agreed in a meeting on 29 July 1914 that although Britain was a signatory to the Treaty of London, the terms of the treaty did not oblige the British to oppose a German invasion of Belgium with military force.[[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#cite_note-23) According to Isabel V. Hull, > [Annika Mombauer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annika_Mombauer "Annika Mombauer") wrote “Few historians would still maintain that the ‘[rape of Belgium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium "Rape of Belgium")’ was the real motive for Britain’s declaration of war on Germany”. Instead, the role of Belgian neutrality is variously interpreted as an excuse used to mobilise public opinion, to provide embarrassed radicals in the cabinet with the justification for abandoning the principal [_[sic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic "Sic")_] of pacifism and thus staying in office, or – in the more conspiratorial versions – as cover for naked imperial interests". > [@Andy\_L](#): > > P.S. If (for the sake of argument) the invasion of Belgium was only an excuse for Britain to go to war with Germany, because they always intended to go to war with Germany I never claimed that. Britain made that decision in what Britain thought was it’s own best political interest. But yeah, i said above > [@DrDeth](#): > > Kaiser Wilhelm, being a fool of the first order- decided to build a great fleet- as he thought to show his relatives the British how much he admired them. This was a huge mistake. The British could not allow any nation to challenge them at sea, and started building more battleships, and also turned the British public against the Germans- instead of the old foe- the French. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > We know in that era it was possible to respond to another country’s mobilization by mobilizing your military to deploy near your border without any actual act of war against an adversary. Yes, which is why the Kaiser personally contacted his cousin the Tsar to stop the mobilization. Which the Tsar refused to do. Germany knew that France and Russia had plans to attack from both sides. This was not a secret, every national leader knew that. So Russia Mobilizes- an act or war back then. The Kaiser makes a plea to stop the war. Tsar says no. That does mean WAR. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > We know that because France did it. It came at the cost of fighting the entire war on their own soil (although their poor military strategy early made that worse). That was their plan. They had forts, and the plan was to hold off the Germans until the Russian “steamroller” crushed Germany from the East. It really was a pretty good plan, but no one - not even the tsar- knew the big bad "steamroller’ was nothing of the sort- untrained serfs in poor uniforms, with one rifle and 5 rounds for every two men. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Lets go back to Belgium with your mobilization logic. If mobilizationcwas literally an act of war, then just by mobilizing forces in the direction of Belgium, Germany had already violated Belgian neutrality so France was within their rights to invade Belgium preemptively themselves. The Russian army Mobilized on July 29th, 1914. The German army ordered the _start_ of mobilization in the West on August 2. Germany had already declared war vs Russia the day before. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > I of course think this is ridiculous -… Of course it was totally ridiculous. The whole inevitable march to war in 1914 was absolutely ridiculous. The Sleepwalkers and many other sources makes that clear. Even the Guns of August. **The Great War was started for ridiculous reasons.** I listed them above. French wanting revenge, Serbia killing the Archduke. Russia declaring vs Germany and AH- all totally foolish and ridiculous. At any time before Russia moved vs Germany, it could have been just another local Balkan war, like many before. But once Russia started the war, the dominos fell- bang, bang, bang, … and 22 million humans dead. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/28 "2026-09-13T14:02:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Of course it was totally ridiculous. The whole inevitable march to war in 1914 was absolutely ridiculous It was a ridiculous idea that Germany had. France did not in fact use mobilization of an adversary as a justification for a preemptive attack. ---
**Author:** ![DETXL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/detxl/32/19366_2.png) [@DETXL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DETXL)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/29 "2026-09-13T14:20:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > False. The author of the Sleepwalkers found the documents that proved the French deceived the author the Guns of August and others. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The Sleepwalkers provided said evidence. Great! I have my copy right here. Can you let me know what page I should be looking on for where Clark provides evidence that "the French deceived [Barbara Tuchman, et al.]? Don’t worry if you have an e-book, by the way; the index still gives physical page numbers. I assume it’s probably somewhere in Ch. 12, “Last Days,” either in the section “‘There must be some misunderstanding’” or “The Tribulations of Paul Cambon”? > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > Yes, the claim that the widely cited order of events when the war xited is wrong based on some kind of fraud or forgery is extraordinary and requires specifics and cited evidence. Direct evidence is, of course, complicated by Germany’s destruction of their diplomatic cables. This is probably why the German “[white book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_German_White_Book),” their collection of documents around the outbreak of war, is all of 32 pages long, and curiously ends on August 1st, with one final telegram on August 2nd. The section “How the Franco-German conflict might have been avoided” is only three pages and entirely concerns the hypothetical that Great Britain might have used the Royal Navy to compel French neutrality, thus sparing Germany the need to invade. The French, in actuality, were > scrupulously avoiding any aggressive measures against Germany: on the morning of 30 July, the Council of Ministers agreed that French covering troops would take positions along a line from the Vosges mountains to Luxembourg, but without getting closer than ten kilometers from the frontier. The idea was to avoid any possibility of border skirmishes with German patrols and to persuade London of the pacific nature of French policy. It was felt that the moral effect and propaganda value of the exclusion zone outweighed the military risks. (Christopher Clark, _The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914_) Had the Kaiser believed himself under threat from the French, and certainly had the French initiated hostilities, this would’ve been a great place to say that. Had any Germans at all believed this, this would’ve been a great place to say it. I will repeat in this (evidently more appropriate) forum Chief of the German General Staff Helmuth von Moltke’s lamentation on being sidelined in 1915: > It is dreadful to be condemned to inactivity in this war _which I prepared and initiated_. (emphasis mine) By ending on August 2nd, the White Book is not obliged to document the German occupation of Luxembourg on that day, which was obviously quite alarming to the Belgians. August 2nd was also when Britain became aware that Germany was impounding British ships in Hamburg and expropriating their cargo (this is the subject of documents 149, 150, and 156 in the British Blue Book). And if, as Clark says, the French wanted to “avoid any possibility of border skirmishes with German patrols,” their counterparts were not so interested—August 2nd is also the date that the first German soldier of the Great War was killed. In France. Because he was patrolling over the French border. Because Germany was interested in an offensive war with France. Germany justified its occupation of Luxembourg to the Belgians—as they would justify the invasion of Belgium itself—as one of exigent circumstances. Belgian diplomat Eugène Beyens cabled the Belgian foreign office on August 4th, with “a translation of part of the speech made to-day in the Reichstag by the Imperial Chancellor” illustrating this mindset on the part of the Germans, as they themselves articulated it: > Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and have perhaps already entered Belgium. This is contrary to the dictates of international law. France has, it is true, declared at Brussels that she was prepared to respect the neutrality of Belgium so long as it was respected by her adversary. But we knew that France was ready to invade Belgium. France could wait; we could not. A French attack upon our flank in the region of the Lower Rhine might have been fatal. We were, therefore, compelled to ride roughshod over the legitimate protests of the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. For the wrong which we are thus doing, we will make reparation as soon as our military object is attained. Germany had previously tried to convince Belgium that France had initiated hostilities, and used this in their declaration of war with France on August 3rd, accusing French aviators of “having flown over the territory of the Empire and of having thrown bombs” (document number 148 in the French Yellow Book, concerning Germany’s declaration of war). The Belgians seem to have been perplexed by this, judging by this summary from an early morning meeting on the 3rd of August (document number 21 in the first Belgian Grey Book): > At 1.30 A.M. the German Minister asked to see Baron van der Elst. He told him that he had been instructed by his Government to inform the Belgian Government that French dirigibles had thrown bombs, and that a French cavalry patrol had crossed the frontier in violation of international law, seeing that war had not been declared. > > The Secretary-General asked Herr von Below where these incidents had happened, and was told that it was in Germany. Baron van der Elst then observed that in that case he could not understand the object of this communication. Herr von Below stated that these acts, which were contrary to international law, were calculated to lead to the supposition that other acts, contrary to international law, would be committed by France. But what the Germans alleged, _specifically_, was that the French had bombed Nuremberg, all the way in Bavaria, which was so ridiculous an assertion that _nobody_ seems to have taken it seriously. And really, conceivably the German White Book is so scanty because they already knew their cover was blown. Recall that, having given Russia their final ultimatum, the Germans prepared two justifications for war, one saying that Russia had not replied to the ultimatum and one saying that the response was unsatisfactory, _and then accidentally delivered both messages_. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/30 "2026-09-13T17:48:52Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > It was a ridiculous idea that Germany had. France did not in fact use mobilization of an adversary as a justification for a preemptive attack. True, France did not Declare if Germany Mobilized- they were going to attack Germany anyway, from revenge plans laid over four decades. France had spent millions on Russia so Russia could crush Germany. > [@DETXL](#): > > Great! I have my copy right here. Can you let me know what page I should be looking on for where Clark provides evidence that "the French deceived [Barbara Tuchman, et al.]? I have a hard copy. Let me know when you finish the book. > [@DETXL](#): > > Recall that, having given Russia their final ultimatum, the Germans prepared two justifications for war, one saying that Russia had not replied to the ultimatum and one saying that the response was unsatisfactory, _and then accidentally delivered both messages_. German Ultimatum to Russia? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/31 "2026-09-13T17:58:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@DETXL](#): > > > > Great! I have my copy right here. Can you let me know what page I should be looking on for where Clark provides evidence that "the French deceived [Barbara Tuchman, et al.]? > > I have a hard copy. Let me know when you finish the book. This just looks like you don’t want to back up your claim with a cite. You both have the book, he’s asking which page number to turn to – that’s literally how every cited work is referenced anywhere. I assume he’s read the book already and is just asking for you to complete the citation reference. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/32 "2026-09-13T18:07:28Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > This just looks like you don’t want to back up your claim with a cite. You both have the book, he’s asking which page number to turn to – that’s literally how every cited work is referenced anywhere. I assume he’s read the book already and is just asking for you to complete the citation reference. I have no need to reread the book for many hours just to prove this- since the point- as I have stated- it is moot- Russian and France were going to attack Germany anyway. That was their plan. Russia was the aggressor, and Frances plans were clear- get revenge by destroying Germany. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/33 "2026-09-13T18:07:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I have a hard copy. Let me know when you finish the book. I don’t have this book. Your assertion about what the book says is very vague so there’s no way for me to assess anything about it. At a bare minimum you could at least quote the passage. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/34 "2026-09-13T18:10:31Z")
You can also just say, “Yes, I don’t feel like backing up my claim with a cite.” ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/35 "2026-09-13T18:24:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > since the point- as I have stated- it is moot- Russian and France were going to attack Germany anyway. You acknowledge that German troops literally attacked France in the western front before French troops attacked Germany. If France didn’t declare war before Germany, then it means that Germany literally aggressed against France, but your argument would be that it’s hypothetically possible that France would’ve attacked first if Germany didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/36 "2026-09-13T18:29:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > Somehow you missed the part about A-H mobilizing in 1912 and in July 1914. > > > > DrDeth: > > > > Andy\_L: > > In 1912 it was in response to the first Balkan war. The Mobilization forced a diplomatic ending of the crisis. > > In 1914 it was to go to war against Serbia- which did commit an act or war vs AH. No one denied that. Austro-Hungary mobilized in 1912 for a war that they had no part of - almost like mobilization is a move that is not necessarily an act of war against anyone, but rather is a move that can be defensive or aggressive. [quote=“DrDeth, post:27, topic:1033000”] Then why state Serbia had capitulated? But here ya go, this is the chapter title of my link. > **Serbian response: Partial compliance with Austro-Hungarian demands** Thanks. It includes the helpful statement from Kaiser Wilhelm about the Serbian response: “all grounds for war have disappeared.” You have an interesting approach to ultimata. Serbian partial compliance to an A-H ultimatum is a just cause for A-H attacks, but utter defiance of a British ultimatum is no cause for war at all. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/37 "2026-09-13T18:41:35Z")
> [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > If France didn’t declare ware before Germany, then it means that Germany literally aggressed against France, “Literally”? Maybe. But in _reality_- no. The plans of France and Russia were well known. That is why Germany too the risk of going through Belgium. Germany knew it could not defeat both, they HAD to knock one out early. They picked France, as that had worked in the FP war. The point is- Germany had to do _something_ or be destroyed. But in any case- Russia- not Germany- was the aggressor. Once Russia moved it was going to be WW1. And, I know that even if I find the page number, some posters will claim the book is not reliable, or that it does not matter, “since Germany attacked poor innocent Belgium”. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Austro-Hungary mobilized in 1912 for a war that they had no part of - almost like mobilization is a move that is not necessarily an act of war against anyone, but rather is a move that can be defensive or aggressive. It did have a part, but AH stated they had mobilized to defend their borders. Russia was clear- they were going to crush Germany. Period. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > You have an interesting approach to ultimata. Serbian partial compliance to an A-H ultimatum is a just cause for A-H attacks, I did not say that. What i said was that when Serbia assassinated the Archduke, that was _a legit casus belli._ Everyone agrees on that. Now, AH maybe could have accepted the partial acceptance of their Ultimatum. That would likely have been a better idea. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > but utter defiance of a British ultimatum is no cause for war at all. The British had RealPolitik reasons for going to war, that had very little to do with Belgium. IMHO, they went to war due to the Kaiser trying to build the High Seas fleet. The British could not accept any European nation having a navy that could challenge the British navy. The British could have ignored the treaty- it had ignored other treaties, it had cheerfully invaded other Neutral nations for their political goals- Denmark, Norway, Zululand, and more. An old treaty that did not require the Brits to actually use military force? That meant nothing, except as an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/38 "2026-09-13T18:53:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Germany knew it could not defeat both, they HAD to knock one out early. Or, and hear me out here, they could have knocked out neither. You do realize, do you not, that you’re using the exact same justification that Bush 43 used for the Iraq War? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/39 "2026-09-13T18:54:10Z")
> Now where was I? Oh right, so Germany attacked France first, which was the style at the time. Some may say that makes me them aggressor, but when you hear about all the stuff that France was doing, you’ll realize Germany had no choice but to attack first! Wait a second, > Now where was I? Oh right, so Russia attacked Ukraine first, which was the style at the time. Some may say that makes me them aggressor, but when you hear about all the stuff that Ukraine was doing, you’ll realize Russia had no choice but to attack first! or > Now where was I? Oh right, so America attacked Iran first, which was the style at the time. Some may say that makes me them aggressor, but when you hear about all the stuff that Iran was doing, you’ll realize America had no choice but to attack first! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/40 "2026-09-13T18:58:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Or, and hear me out here, they could have knocked out neither And then, allow itself to be destroyed? > [@Chronos](#): > > You do realize, do you not, that you’re using the exact same justification that Bush 43 used for the Iraq War? Well, first of all- Bush was wrong. There was finally solid evidence that Iraq had no significant and dangerous amounts of WMD, and Bush attacked anyway. But maybe Iraq is a side issue? However, Russia had already started it’s aggression vs Germany- despite pleas for peace. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000.md?page=3)