(followed by an endless post)
Kid, you are going to fit right in here. Welcome aboard!
In twelve years, this might be the funniest thing I’ve read on this board.
So did Hitler.
If I can go back in time to Summer 1914, and inhabit the Kaiser’s body:
- Instead of issuing the Austrians a blank check and then sailing off on my yacht, I call all the Powers together. I show up in civilian clothing.
- I tell the French they can have Alsance Lorraine back; all they have to do is dump Russia.
- That done, the Czar isn’t so sure of an easy win. But I allow him to save face by opposing reggicide; not supporting fellow Slavs. Technically, Slavs had killed his grandfather, too.
- Tell the Austrians they can have a war of revenge for six months. They better have an exit strategy. After that, I’m taking the phone off the hook, and if every Slav in your empire wants to start their own country while your army is killing Serbs, don’t ask for my help.
- Start naval-reductions talks with the British. I don’t want to make battleships. I want to make cars. Lots and lots of really nice cars.
Bismarck’s dying advice to Wilhelm was, ‘Don’t challenge Britain for the seas and don’t anger Russia’. Wilhelm was a spoiled punk who grew into a foolish emperor, he was a colossal failure of a leader at a moment the power balance of the world was changing.
However, regardless of who was in charge of all the nations involved Germany’s population and industrial strength was surpassing the old arbiters of power on the continent, conflict was coming sooner or later. That’s what made the conflcit inevitable.
What made it the horror that was ‘WWI’ inevitable was the careful status quo maintained in the past when power grew and shrank came to an end with the advancements of the 19th century.
How did that affect WWI?
It didn’t. Just pointing out Hitler also ignored the “no two-front war” advice.
Irrelevant. Please leave the thread to those who are educating us on the arguments about the OP.
Correction, sorry- Kaiser Wilhelm’s father was born in 1839.
He reigned for only 98 days in 1888 as before dying of throat cancer.
I disagree–their Royals were so inept & backwards-looking that they would have moved irregardless.
I remember the post the OP is talking about and I made the comment at the time it would have been better to assassinate Kaiser Wilhelm as he gave Austria a blank cheque.
I have read Dreadnought and Castles of Steel and still have the same view- peace would have been possible without his dictatorship.
Put simply he was an idiot with visions of glory and his own importance. For 20 years he meddled in world affairs with no real concept of outcomes or his own impacts. His diplomacy was a disaster.
His dumping of Bismark only accelerated the problem. Bismark, with great foresight remarked that 20 years after he was gone all would be lost for Germany. he was very accurate.
If Kaiser Wilhelms father had survived I suspect peace would have been maintained- or at least prolonged.
I think that its easy to blame Kaiser Bill (not that he does not deserve a lot of the blame). Lot of the other powers are equally blameworthy, the Russians (having Nicky as Czar is bad enough) mobilising, the French, for being too egar to go to war again, and the British, for not being British and staying the hell out of it.
I think I will be the contrarian and say that war was not inevitable. There have (and indeed in the previous 50 years had) been many occasions when it seemed so, yet the powers pulled back. If the summer of 1914 had passed, I think cooler heads could have prevailed.
I also disagree on whether its fair to blame Germany for the naval arms race. The British were going to be enemies of the Germans after 1871 for the simple reason that the Germans were now the power on the continent and the British always allied against the present power. The Germans knew that they could dominate the mainland and British sea power would make it irrelevant over the long run, as it did for Napoleon and Louis XIV and in the seven years war. Yes the Kaiser wanted the large shiny ships to satisfy him, but Tirpitz and others, when they embarked on their projects realised they had to at least neutralise the RN. This is exactly what happened when war came, the RN played a secondary role.
Whoa- I will disagree totally with the last sentence- the Royal Navy probably played a larger role in the defeat of germany than any other military branch.
Although there was really only the one large scale clash between the navies (Jutland) the RN enforced a blockade of Germany that eventually ensured victory. There was no imports of crucial raw elements, food or even things like fertilizer. It was inevitable that Germany would find it difficult to sustain a war effort with that imposed.
It is likely that the blockade was not entirely legal, but it went ahead.
Germany was defeated on land. Her collapse was caused by the defeats in the 100 days. The RN had an important role, but it was not the primary one is in earlier wars.
I’m not getting through. Their defeat on land wasnot only because of war weariness, but lack of vital supplies.
Aircraft were limited in their missions due to lack of fuel. There was no rubber- they canabilized whatever they could get from trench raids. There was no coffee, no fertilizer for food production- the population was starving.
Read a few books about it and get back to me.
I have;). I am not discounting the effects of the blockade, my mere point is that while important the naval theater was not where Germany was going to win or lose the war. A continental power like the Germans are going to be defeated on land. It turned British startegy of about 300 years on its head, the British for about the first (and with the exception of the summer of 1944) and the only time in their history took the leas against a Continental power. The Germans compelled the British to fight on terms that were at least favourable to the Germans. The German fleet was big enough that the British could not employ their Naval assets to the optimum.
Strangely enough AH didn’t have a problem with ethnic insurrection that, say, even Britain did. The Balkans had been breaking up for 30 years with small nations battling ancient power bases and winning, many expected the minorities in AH to take their first breaths of self determination in the middle of the war, (Russian minorities too) but it just didn’t happen. The common explanation I’ve read is Germans, Hungarians and minorities alike felt attacked and that brought unity, the concept ‘you don’t need to respect the man but respect the office’ I’m sure also played a role.
That said, they were not without their problems. The language barriers were often a problem as the officers were overwhelmingly German speakers. Equipment was also uneven and unreliable in the best of circumstances. Strategically they had the issue of the small war they wanted to pursue and could easy handle (fighting Serbia) and the war they couldn’t (Russia) and so decided on leaving the 2nd to ‘back up’ both fronts, the worst possible solution. Belgium had a standing order for heavy Krupp guns, but the deliveries got delayed.
Fun Fact: Krupp hadn’t finished their soon-to-be famous guns in time for the start of WWI, the early Belgian forts were taken with Skoda guns, built in AH.
nm…
*- Damn edit window bites me in the ass again.