# 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:** 3
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/41 "2026-09-13T18:59:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “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. Yes, that was the logic behind Germany’s plan in the event that they had to prepare for war against Russia and France. The war plan was not designed to both prepare for war and attempt to prevent it during a complex crisis in which deescalation was possible. That motivated the completely hamhanded way Germany acted in the July Crisis. At various points during the crisis, political leadership in Germany expressed that diplomatically it was possible to deescalate, only for the military leadership to persuade them that Germany specifically couldn’t deescalate because their war plan required a preemptive maximum engagement. France, Russia and the UK did not have this issue. The closest they had was the insistence by Russian generals to the Tzar that partial mobilization for the crisis in Austria was not possible -that their war plans required a full mobilization. Not a preemptive attack, a mobilization. In the alternative where Germany had a plan for mobilization without a preemptive attack, there was nothing technically stopping anyone from mobilizing and having large forces on their borders, waiting. France and Russia were never faced with a hypothetical where all countries had mobilized but their troops and Germany’s troops were still staring at each other. It’s possible in that alternate world, that France and Russia would have then attacked. But this is entirely speculation because what actually happened is that Germany attacked before this. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/42 "2026-09-13T20:12:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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 You could just provide the reference to back up your claims, instead of prejudging the response. A logical conclusion at this point is that the book doesn’t support you. > [@DrDeth](#): > > What i said was that when Serbia assassinated the Archduke, that was _a legit casus belli._ Everyone agrees on that. No, they don’t. For one thing, _Serbia_ did not assassinate the Archduke, a nationalist group helped by a rogue intelligence chief did, which is why the Serbian government went to great lengths to appease Austria-Hungary. As we have just seen in this thread, the Kaiser himself declared that the Serbian concessions removed all cause for war, yet Willy felt compelled to launch his own invasion after the Austrians went ahead with efforts to obliterate Serbia. Your contention that poor Germany had to implement the Schlieffen plan to prevent being crushed by bloodthirsty France and Russia, makes about as much sense as declaring that Putin had to invade Ukraine to keep Russia from being overrun.\* \*which, incredibly, was a large part of Putin’s justifications, including a non-existent military threat to Russia from Ukraine and NATO. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/43 "2026-09-13T23:11:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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”. You could prove this prediction right now, by pointing to the page number. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@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. So at least we agree that some mobilizations are not acts of war. Progress. In what way was Russia clear that mobilizing to defend its ally against A-H was really a ploy aimed at Germany? > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@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. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@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 But this wasn’t an old treaty pulled out only to hassle Germany - Britain threatened France with war just 2 years earlier when France talked about invading Belgium, and in 1911 and 1913, Germany had assured Belgium that its neutrality would be respected ([Avalon Project - The Bryce Report](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brycere.asp)): > In 1911 the Belgian Minister at Berlin had requested an assurance from Germany that she would observe the Treaty of 1839; and the Chancellor of the Empire had declared that Germany had no intention of violating Belgian neutrality. Again in 1913 the German Secretary of State at a meeting of a Budget Committee Or the Reichstag had declared that “Belgian neutrality is provided for by international conventions and Germany is determined to respect those conventions.” **Every nation** has RealPolitik reasons for its actions. A-H was worried about Serbia long before the assassination (from Wikipedia: " The Kingdom of Serbia worried Vienna since it had unilaterally declared its independence in 1878.[[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_of_July_23,_1914#cite_note-14) The Serbian [Obrenović](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Obrenovi%C4%87 "House of Obrenović") dynasty had been a [client](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_state "Client state") of Austria-Hungary until its violent dissolution in the 1903 [May Coup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Serbia) "May Coup (Serbia)"). The new monarch [Peter I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_I_of_Serbia "Peter I of Serbia"), with the backing of the [Serbian Radical Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Radical_Party "Serbian Radical Party"), pivoted to a French alliance. Serbia’s victory in the [Balkan Wars of 1913](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Wars "Balkan Wars") only heightened nationalist fervor in Belgrade. Serbia was transforming from a middling state to a rapidly growing power with close ties to Russia; Austria-Hungary and the German Empire were determined to force it back into lockstep with the Central Powers." A-H designed its ultimatum to be completely rejected (“From the text, it becomes evident that Austro-Hungarian diplomats, at the behest of military leaders and key officials of the Dual Monarchy, sought to assert increasing control over their smaller neighbor. Their objective was to revert to the situation before 1903, effectively transforming the Kingdom of Serbia into a satellite of Austria-Hungary”), which is probably why they didn’t try to work out the few remaining issues after Serbia agreed to almost everything. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/44 "2026-09-13T23:40:32Z")
P.S. During any discussion of the Great War, someone is going to quote Blackadder Goes Forth, and it might as well be me: > **Edmund:** You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way, there could never be a war. > > **Baldrick:** But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir? > > _Edmund_: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan. > > **George:** What was that, sir? > > **Edmund** : It was bollocks.” This is of course an exaggeration - the blocs shifted around and around over the whole 19th century (Britain considered Russia its arch-enemy most of that time, and wasn’t fond of France either), but it’s still funny ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/45 "2026-09-13T23:45:12Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > You could just provide the reference to back up your claims Yes, i could try and find the book, and then re-read the book- all to absolutely no purpose- which is pretty clear now. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > For one thing, _Serbia_ did not assassinate the Archduke, a nationalist group helped by a rogue intelligence chief did, which is why the Serbian government went to great lengths to appease Austria-Hungary. > **[Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand)** > > Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated by Bosnian Serb student Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. They were shot at close range while being driven through the provincial capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, formally annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908. The incident was one of the key events that led to World War I. Princip was part of a group of six Bosnian assassins together wit... > The assassination team was helped by the [Black Hand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia) "Black Hand (Serbia)"), a Serbian secret [nationalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_nationalism "Serbian nationalism") group; support came from [Dragutin Dimitrijević](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 "Dragutin Dimitrijević"), chief of the military intelligence section of the Serbian general staff, as well as from Major [Vojislav Tankosić](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojislav_Tankosi%C4%87 "Vojislav Tankosić") and [Rade Malobabić](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rade_Malobabi%C4%87 "Rade Malobabić"), a Serbian [intelligence agent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage "Espionage"). Tankosić provided bombs and pistols to the assassins and trained them in their use. The assassins were given access to the same clandestine network of [safe-houses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_house "Safe house") and agents that Malobabić used for the infiltration of weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > As we have just seen in this thread, the Kaiser himself declared that the Serbian concessions removed all cause for war, yet Willy felt compelled to launch his own invasion after the Austrians went ahead with efforts to obliterate Serbia. I already covered that, and The Kaiser did not invade Serbia.. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Your contention that poor Germany had to implement the Schlieffen plan to prevent being crushed by bloodthirsty France and Russia, I did not claim that. What i said- that is what the Germans thought. I can go into other alt-hist ideas of how Germany could have won without going into Belgium, if you like. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > In what way was Russia clear that mobilizing to defend its ally against A-H was really a ploy aimed at Germany? The Tsar pretty much admitted it, and the Mobilization was against Germany also. Again, for the nth time- The plans of France and Russia to crush germany were no big secret. If you know someone is planning to kill you and he knocks on your door with a gun in his hand, you can make the assumption. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > But this wasn’t an old treaty pulled out only to hassle Germany - Britain threatened France with war just 2 years earlier when France talked about invading Belgium, and in 1911 and 1913, You mean those wonderful, nice guys the French? Never. Incidentally the French had plans to go through Belgium their selves in 1914, but they figured they could get permission, by diplomacy or threats. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > But this wasn’t an old treaty pulled out only to hassle Germany And, like i have shown- Britain followed those treaties when it was expedient for them to do so. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > **Edmund** : It was bollocks.” Yes, simplistic, certainly, but Captain Blackadder was right- it was bollocks. > [@DeadTreasSecretaries](#): > > That motivated the completely hamhanded way Germany acted in the July Crisis. Did I not say that the Kaiser was a fool, and that was ONE of the many causes of the Great War? ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/46 "2026-09-13T23:52:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Tsar pretty much admitted it, and the Mobilization was against Germany also. Again, for the nth time- The plans of France and Russia to crush germany were no big secret. If you know someone is planning to kill you and he knocks on your door with a gun in his hand, you can make the assumption. Things that are no big secret are easy to prove. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > But this wasn’t an old treaty pulled out only to hassle Germany - Britain threatened France with war just 2 years earlier when France talked about invading Belgium, and in 1911 and 1913, > > You mean those wonderful, nice guys the French? Never. Incidentally the French had plans to go through Belgium their selves in 1914, but they figured they could get permission, by diplomacy or threats. You clipped the part where Germany told Belgium in **1913** that they wouldn’t invade. I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding France - France considered violating Belgian neutrality in 1912, were told by the British to cut it out, and they cut it out. Germany was the country that tried diplomacy and threats, briefly, and then just did it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/47 "2026-09-14T00:11:36Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Things that are no big secret are easy to prove. Yes, the Germans knew about Frances **Plan XVII** , but not the details- [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775) > The German General Staff had a remarkably accurate estimate of **Plan XVII** , correctly anticipating that the French would launch a massive, aggressive frontal offensive into Alsace-Lorraine Same with plan Plan XIX. German military intelligence had a general awareness of the France and Russia planned offensives, but they did not know the exact details or timetables [https://study.com/learn/lesson/schlieffen-plan-ww1.html](https://study.com/learn/lesson/schlieffen-plan-ww1.html) (Okay, that is a video, I know but it is from [study.com](http://study.com) and there is text also, ) > [@Andy\_L](#): > > You clipped the part where Germany told Belgium in **1913** that they wouldn’t invade. Yeah, so? The Germans plans had not gotten that definite or desperate yet. ---
**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 14, 2026, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/48 "2026-09-14T00:24:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, the Germans knew about Frances **Plan XVII** , but not the details- > > [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775) > > > The German General Staff had a remarkably accurate estimate of **Plan XVII** , correctly anticipating that the French would launch a massive, aggressive frontal offensive into Alsace-Lorraine > > Same with plan Plan XIX. > > German military intelligence had a general awareness of the France and Russia planned offensives, but they did not know the exact details or timetables > [The Schlieffen Plan of Germany | Definition, Debate & Result - Lesson | Study.com](https://study.com/learn/lesson/schlieffen-plan-ww1.html) > > (Okay, that is a video, I know but it is from [study.com](http://study.com) and there is text also, ) > > > [@Andy\_L](#): > > > > You clipped the part where Germany told Belgium in **1913** that they wouldn’t invade. > > Yeah, so? The Germans plans had not gotten that definite or desperate yet You seem to be changing your story again. Earlier you stated that it was obvious that Russian mobilization was against Germany; here you talk about French battle plans (I agree it was obvious that the French would attack Alsace and Lorraine). Battle plans are not intentions - that’s the whole point of Germany’s invention of a General Staff: a nation’s military should have plans for any contingency (Germany had plans in 1905 for an invasion of the USA), just in case. But you can’t deduce intentions from the existence of plans (or Hungary would be justified in attacking Austro-Hungary because A-H had plans to invade Hungary!) But the funniest bit is the suggestion that Germany could honestly promise in 1913 that they wouldn’t invade Belgium, when the Schlieffen plan (devised in 1906) had had invasion of Belgium as a fundamental feature from the very beginning. If this is a way of saying that Germany’s government was completely out of touch with its own militaries’ plans, then I can believe that - but that doesn’t absolve Germany of guilt. It just means that Germany and its military was completely out of control, and that German promises to any nation meant nothing at all. ---
**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 14, 2026, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/49 "2026-09-14T00:26:29Z")
The Germans knew that if they started a war with France, France would try to attack them? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/50 "2026-09-14T00:44:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I can go into other alt-hist ideas of how Germany could have won without going into Belgium, if you like. Thanks, but we’ve had enough alt-reality already. ---
**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 14, 2026, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/51 "2026-09-14T01:05:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, the Germans knew about Frances **Plan XVII** , but not the details- > > [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02684520600619775) > > > The German General Staff had a remarkably accurate estimate of **Plan XVII** , correctly anticipating that the French would launch a massive, aggressive frontal offensive into Alsace-Lorraine This contradicts your earlier claim that France’s plan was do defend their fort line and let Russia crush Germany for them: > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@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. If it’s true that Germany knew that the war plan France intended to put into action was to attack along the Rhine then you can’t claim that France standing on their border and playing defense was enough pretext for Germany to go to war with them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/52 "2026-09-14T01:35:40Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > You seem to be changing your story again. Earlier you stated that it was obvious that Russian mobilization was against Germany; here you talk about French battle plans (I agree it was obvious that the French would attack Alsace and Lorraine). The whole idea and the question was- was Germany aware of the fact that Russia and france had intentions and plans to attack Germany. They were, and so were most of the major powers, It was not a big secret. Details were secret of course. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > But the funniest bit is the suggestion that Germany could honestly promise in 1913 that they wouldn’t invade Belgium, when the Schlieffen plan (devised in 1906) had had invasion of Belgium as a fundamental feature from the very beginning. The USA had a plan in case of a war with Canada. Plans do not mean intentions. But in 1906- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen\_Plan#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan#History) > In a 1906 staff ride, Moltke sent a hypothetical army through Belgium but concluded that the French would attack through Lorraine, where the decisive battle would be fought before an enveloping move from the north took effect. Here was the plan- #### _\> **Aufmarsch II West** _ > _Aufmarsch II West_ anticipated a war between the Franco-Russian Entente and Germany, with Austria-Hungary supporting Germany and Britain perhaps joining the Entente. Italy was only expected to join Germany if Britain remained neutral. 80 per cent of the German army would operate in the west and 20 per cent in the east. France and Russia were expected to attack simultaneously, because they had the larger force. Germany would execute an “active defence”, in at least the first operation/campaign of the war. German forces would mass against the French invasion force and defeat it in a counter-offensive, while conducting a conventional defence against the Russians. Rather than pursue the retreating French armies over the border, 25 per cent of the German force in the west (20 per cent of the German army) would be transferred to the east, for a counter-offensive against the Russian army. _Aufmarsch II West_ became the main German deployment plan, and note- > the French armies were to concentrate, ready to attack either side of Metz–Thionville or north into Belgium, in the direction of [Arlon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlon "Arlon") and [Neufchâteau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neufch%C3%A2teau,_Belgian_Luxembourg "Neufchâteau, Belgian Luxembourg").[[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDoughty200537-30) ---
**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 14, 2026, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/53 "2026-09-14T01:41:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The whole idea and the question was- was Germany aware of the fact that Russia and france had intentions and plans to attack Germany. They were, and so were most of the major powers, It was not a big secret. Details were secret of course You claim plans and intentions, but prove only plans. Intentions are harder to know - both in the moment and afterward. ---
**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 14, 2026, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/54 "2026-09-14T03:17:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, i could try and find the book, and then re-read the book- all to absolutely no purpose- which is pretty clear now. I hate to keep harping on this, but this is so weird to me, the way you’ve said multiple times that you would have to _re-read the whole book_ to find the passage you’re remembering. It’s the sort of thing an alien might say if they’ve never actually watched humans interact with books. Like, from a fairly early age, students in American schools are taught how to navigate books – indexes, tables of content, chapter titles, topic sentences – it’s all fairly straightforward, you know sorta what you’re looking for so you start flipping through chapters until you find something close, you read a few topic sentences, you realize it’s not the right chapter, you go on to the next most plausible chapter, etc. Generally speaking, when I’m trying to find something I remember in a book I haven’t read for a while, it takes maybe 10 to 20 minutes, tops. _Surely_ you possess this skill, right? This isn’t a strange thing to have to do while preparing, say, a book report, or a research paper, or an email to your boss or something. You simply do not have to re-read the entire book from start to finish for this task, and yet you seem to be stuck on this. Now, do you _want_ to spend 10-20 minutes flipping through this book to provide a proper citation for something you claimed on the SDMB? It’s fine if you don’t, but just say that. Just say, “You know, I remember this being in this book, but I can’t be arsed to find it right now, so I retract my claim. I still think I’m right, but this isn’t worth the effort to me.” Totally fine, people do that here all the time. Just bail out of the argument! Why pretend that you don’t have this basic skill of finding things in books? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/55 "2026-09-14T04:20:28Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Now, do you _want_ to spend 10-20 minutes flipping through this book to provide a proper citation for something you claimed on the SDMB First I have to find the book, but like i said, if I find the passage and come back here and say it is on page 214 or whatever, then posters- as is really evident from. the posts here- will just say that Clark was wrong or made it up or i did not quote it properly. So, no more on that. But what have we learned, my cites and authorities have shown that the causes of the Great Warfare many and varied, that the causes go deep, and that no one nation caused the Great War. > **[Why Did World War I Happen? | CFR Education](https://www.cfr.org/education/learn/reading/why-did-world-war-i-happen?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23819513442&gbraid=0AAAAAD-E15kQGJc7UNMtdC8fR-B93Jgo5&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzY7VBhDwARIsAFtPvBQZYcKoyDPb6Iea4-PouDsTvI42MzrsYKdMjFDCHdwKHLTPDEo1bK4aAoP7EALw_wcB)** > > Explore the complicated web of alliances, nationalism, and imperialism that triggered the start of World War I. > **[The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers:_How_Europe_Went_to_War_in_1914)** > > The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 is a book by Australian historian Christopher Clark, first published in 2012. The book covers the causes of the First World War, starting in 1903 with the murder of Alexander I of Serbia and ending with the outbreak of World War One. In The Sleepwalkers, Clark argues that no sole country is to blame for starting the First World War, rather, each country unwittingly stumbled into it. This is contrary to the conventional theory, the Fischer thesis, w... > [@DrDeth](#): > > > 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". Yes, many Americans have been misled into drinking the propaganda koolaid by GB and France, who had to show that they were innocent victims, and that the nasty subhuman baby-eating huns started the war- likely just to get a source of more babies to eat. 🙄 But they were all Fools- Imperialistic, warmongering fools, who thought the war would be over by Christmas. Kaiser Wilhelm was a fool by ignorantly taunting GB with a competing fleet, and then giving AH carte Blanche. And he was a cause of the war. The French were fools as they thought they could get revenge- instead parts of France was devastated for decades, and they lost 1.4 Million men, not to mention over 4 million wounded and crippled. Oh, and they did get their revenge in a treaty which some Historians think was a root cause of WW2. Fools. And a cause of the War. AH were fools as they thought they were still a world power, instead they struggled to cope with just Serbia. Russia? The Tsar was the worst. He thought his huge slave…err serf army was great, and so was they were the first aggressor of the Great War, and possibly the most central cause- of many causes. Tsar lost 2 million men, plus untold civilians, his throne and his family. Britain wanted to meddle for its own Political reasons, mostly to destroy the competing fleet, but yes, the people were shocked by Belgium. Lost nearly a million young men, often by sending them walking slowly into machinegun fire. Whole villages had not a single young man left. Both France and Britain were said to have lost an entire generation of young men. No, Germanies foolish and brutal attack into Belgium did not cause the Great War. It was not even a significant cause. It was just one more tragedy of a foolish stupid war caused by old men heedlessly killing off their own young men- for foolish reasons. The only nation that had a legit casus belli was AH, and it blew that by its ridiculous list of demands. More fools. Oh and the USA? Drawn in by a Anglophile racist President, British propaganda, and German stupidity- and it cost us millions of $, 116,000 doughboys dead- and launched the Isolationist Movement. Wilson- another fool. No one cause. No one bad guy. The Great War was not “A war against Evil” - more like “A war against common sense”. ---
**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 14, 2026, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/56 "2026-09-14T08:59:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > German Ultimatum to Russia? Immediately prior to declaring war on Russia, Germany twice demanded that Russia halt its mobilization against “us and Austria-Hungary.” > And the pressure became especially acute on the night of 29 July, when the Germans warned St Petersburg that they would consider mobilizing their own forces unless Russia halted its own mobilization. (Christopher Clark. _The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914_, p. 504) This is an absurd framing, implying as it does that there was any scenario in which Germany might “consider” going to war and then decide against it. In any case even Clark concedes shortly thereafter (p. 510) that Sazonov “viewed this warning as an ultimatum.” Clark is aware of, but does not quote, the message, in which Bethmann Hollweg warned that: > if Russia continued her military preparations, even though she did not proceed to mobilize, Germany would find herself compelled to mobilize, in which case she would immediately proceed to take the offensive Christopher Clark hints at the reason for Russian concerns. For a start, the vast majority (90%) of Russian trade passed through the Black Sea, and Russia was aware of their vulnerability should the Ottoman Empire become unfriendly. This was, of course, about to happen—Germany was at that moment concluding their secret alliance with the Ottoman Empire. (They would shortly thereafter preserve SMS _Goeben_ and SMS _Breslau_ by transferring the two ships to the “neutral” Ottomans, as the battlecruiser _Yavuz Sultan Selim_ and the light cruiser _Midilli_. And by October—Admiral Wilhelm Souchon still commanding and with the German crew wearing fezzes—in one single stroke challenge the emerging stalemate on the Western Front _and_ cut the Gordian knot of Ottoman indecision by bombarding Russian ports in the Black Sea, leading to a Russian declaration of war) But Russia was also concerned by Austria-Hungary’s troop movements. Clark acknowledges this: > In 1913, for example, the Russians had learned from their intelligence sources that the Austrians had earmarked as many as seven army corps for the eventuality of a war with Serbia. But in July 1914, reports (of dubious accuracy) from Ambassador Shebeko and the Russian military attaché Vineken suggested that the number of corps currently in preparation might be as high as eight or nine. Russian intelligence read this discrepancy as an indication that Conrad might be shifting from his Serbian-focused Plan B to the Russian-centred Plan R, in other words embarking on a ‘covert shift to full or near-full Austrian mobilization’. (Christopher Clark. _The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914_, p. 514) The parenthetical “of dubious veracity” is Clark’s editorializing. He cites Bruce Menning here (his 2015 article “Russian Military Intelligence, July 1914: What St. Petersburg Believed and Why It Mattered,” in _The Historian_). This is not what Menning says. Menning says: > For intelligence analysts within GUGSh these figures—even with discrepancies—were troubling. Eight corps far exceeded the five–six that the comprehensive intelligence estimate of 1 March 1914 (O.S.) had considered necessary to subdue Serbia, even if allied with Montenegro […] Still worse, there were ominous fragmentary reports of additional mobilizations and deployments, now including both Czech Corps (VIII and IX respectively at Prague and Josefstadt/Leitmeritz) and possibly III Corps (at Graz) in its entirety. Many of these corps-level formations matched intelligence materials for _Fall R_, the Austro-Hungarian strategic deployment scheme for war against Russia. Clark simultaneously overstates Russia’s estimate of Austro-Hungarian troop allocations required for a Serbia-only campaign and understates the assessment of what had actually been mobilized (the “discrepancy” Menning mentions has a range of up to 10 corps, “depending on confirmation”). The effect of minimizing the difference is that Clark acknowledges that Russia had reason to believe Austria-Hungary was mobilizing against it, while presenting that conclusion as irrational—“as many as 7 corps vs 8 or 9” implies the Russians took as little as one extra formation as an existential threat, while Menning’s paper could just as easily have been summarized as “twice as many (10 vs 5) as Russian intelligence guessed would be needed to subdue Serbia.” For similar reasons, I expect, Clark really uses Menning only for these estimates and to obliquely insult the Russian decisionmaking process. He does not contextualize those reports—as Bruce Menning does, in explaining that, for the Russians, this matched a pattern of intelligence that had been developing over the preceding days: > One was that Berlin was recalling German reserve officers located in Russia. The second was that in Austria-Hungary “exceptional measures thoroughly prepared in peacetime enter into force either upon mobilization or before it, if the political situation so requires.” That same day a supplementary report from the Special Office of the Quartermaster General Section outlined the significance of these “exceptional measures,” especially within the context of secret instructions in GUGSh possession for Austro-Hungarian troop mobilization. What the _GUGSh_ (the Russian general staff) knew from these instructions was that, in their words, “in general the actual conduct of mobilization is possible before its declaration.” Clark, who must know this because he is citing the same article, does not acknowledge this in characterizing Russia’s military preparations as mere rationalizations so they could “claim to be standing with their backs against the wall” (p. 514). This is part of a pattern of such editorializing, which always ends on the view most favorable to the German Empire, incidentally. For another striking example (p. 498): > As Grey was proposing his four-power mediation idea at the end of the cabinet meeting of 24 July, [French president Raymond] Poincaré and [French prime minister René] Viviani were crossing the Gulf of Finland on board the _France_, escorted by Russian torpedo boats. When they arrived in Sweden on the following day, Poincaré exploited the access to secure telegraphic links to ensure that control over the formulation of policy remained with himself and (nominally) Viviani. Clark does not see fit to mention that we don’t know what Poincaré might have done before having secure telegraph links to “exploit,” _because the German Empire was jamming the ship’s wireless signals_, putting Paris out of contact with its leadership at a critical juncture before the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia had been issued. Anyway, speaking of ultimatums, the final from Germany to Russia was of course the one immediately preceding the declaration of war, which demanded Russia “stop every measure of war against us and against Austria-Hungary within 12 hours.” This, alongside the corresponding telegram to France, are documents 24 and 25 in the German White Book. The first begins: “In spite of negotiations still pending and although we have up to this hour made no preparations for mobilization,” which is a lie. Germany absolutely had made “preparations” by July 31st. Indeed, the ultimatum to Belgium that eventually precipitated French and British involvement had been drafted on the 26th, before any shots had been fired and while Germany was still pretending that they were open to negotiation. (As Menning puts it, in another line of the article Clark chooses not to quote: “the Russians were not naïve. They understood that German mobilization was lightning fast and that major components might easily lie hidden from outside view.”) > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, i could try and find the book, and then re-read the book- all to absolutely no purpose- which is pretty clear now. You are the one who has said, repeatedly, that Christopher Clark “proved” the conventional history of the July Crisis is the result of calculated French lies impugning Germany. I assume it is important to you because this is at least the third thread in which you have made this claim. “In my opinion, Germany was an innocent bystander in the outbreak of the Great War” is not falsifiable. It would be a silly opinion, but it’s not making a statement of fact. “The author of the Sleepwalkers found the documents that proved the French deceived the author the Guns of August and others” _is_ making a statement of fact. It is also untrue, both in that Clark did not “find” anything—_The Sleepwalkers_ merely cites existing scholarship around dates ascribed to documents in the French Yellow Book—and that neither Clark nor the authors he references make the allegation you attribute to them. (Incidentally Clark mentions Barbara Tuchman exactly once, in a footnote, damning _Proud Tower_ with faint praise as a “superb example” of the historical trend of portraying the pre-1914 world as uniquely “distant”) To the extent that this misapprehension apparently informs a great deal of your erroneous beliefs about the evolution of the crisis, the “purpose” is to suggest you re-examine your sources. Of course, to the extent that it is simply about that specific source, the “purpose” is that you might, ideally, stop misrepresenting Christopher Clark’s scholarship or—in particular—attributing claims to the book it does not make, and then brushing aside any implication that this appeal to authority might require a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/57 "2026-09-14T09:21:02Z")
I think I heard a mic drop. Bravo! ---
**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 14, 2026, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/58 "2026-09-14T10:31:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, many Americans have been misled into drinking the propaganda koolaid by GB and France, who had to show that they were innocent victims, and that the nasty subhuman baby-eating huns started the war- likely just to get a source of more babies to eat. 🙄 I’ll say I don’t think France or the UK were particularly moral, and I think they’d have no moral objections to doing everything Germany and Austria did if it served their interests. But unlike Germany they were smart enough to realize how reckless those kinds of decisions were and gave themselves the opportunity to deescalate rather than crash headlong into a war that didn’t serve their interests. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2026, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/59 "2026-09-14T18:42:54Z")
Okay, thanks for all the replies. But this is Great Debates, and in a debate, the other side gives THEIR opinions. So, if you want to continue, I want to hear what _your opinions are of the cause(s) of the Great War were._ ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000/60 "2026-09-15T09:31:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, if you want to continue, I want to hear what _your opinions are of the cause(s) of the Great War were._ You are referred to the OP. Really couldn’t be much clearer than that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-germany-was-the-aggressor-against-france-in-wwi/1033000.md?page=4)