War is Declared

[Ace]

I'm sure Le Ricain didn't want to insult anyone. He just said (and I think he is right) that most English speaking word personify Kaiser with German Emperor, mostly because of popular media.

[Pocus]

Indeed! I too believed Kaiser was only for the German big boss

[Baris]

Kaiser is in German what Tsar is in Russian and other Slavic Languages, both are derived from the word- CEASER from Julius Ceaser.

Very True. Ottomans early used the title 'Kayser-i Rum'. Don't know the real Kaiser.

[havi]

Yes and all these kaisers, tsars and kings were relatives.... I think they liked their cousins too much and not in the healthy way.

[Florent]

The players of RoP remember certainly that the first Imperial Regiment is IR1/ Kaiser.

[marek1978]

Yes and all these kaisers, tsars and kings were relatives.... I think they liked their cousins too much and not in the healthy way.

Thats the right point!!!!

anyway - with such a history dedicated game devalopers as AGEOD guys - shouldnt we expect bit more of sex in those games?

[elxaime]

The Russians announced mobilization to-day. My sister in law takes tea with the wife of a man who works in the Foreign Office. She tells me he is assuring everyone not to worry and that this is just a bluff.

[Shri]

They were relatives, mainly due to the fact that Germanic law of inheritance called 'SALIC LAW' was in force in Europe till about 1918.
Eldest Male son inherits all only if the parents are properly married i.e. equals, otherwise called morgantic marriage and children of these unions were not allowed to inherit. Prime example is Franz Ferdinand whose children could not inherit the Habsburg monarchy.

Russian Romanov rulers after Peter the Great were mostly German or German blood, so were almost all of the European Royalty, hence they were related; sometimes multiply related.

[caranorn]

My friend, it was written at 'CANNON Point and BLOCKADE point' hardly equal or free!

I wonder which cannons are forcing German historians to consider Germany responsible for starting the Great War. No, reality is that it was indeed the German Emperor who made the war possible by his alliance with Austria-Hungary which was seen as agressor and occupier by most Balkan populations. Russia on the other hand was seen as a protector in at least Serbia and Montenegro. Lastly the Ultimatum was impossible to accept, no sovereign state could have survived had it accepted all of those points. And once Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia the only thing that could have stopped the war would have been Revolution, particularly in Germany. In addition to the starting situation, further blame lies on Germany for the attack on Belgium (and occupation of Luxembourg) and the anti-partisan commands issued to their troops which led to a large number of war crimes in Belgium and to a lesser degree France. You will not find a serious German historian to locate responsibility outside Germany and Austro-Hungary...

[Le Ricain]

Kaiser is in German what Tsar is in Russian and other Slavic Languages, both are derived from the word- CEASER from Julius Ceaser.
So, Austria and HRE also had Kaisers and had them for a very long time, the Habsburgs ruled for nearly a thousand years, about 4 times the history of USA. Please keep that in mind.

You seem to be confusing the fact that common English uses the title Kaiser to refer to the German Emperor (specifically Wilhelm II) with my knowledge European history. I know that title Kaiser refers to both the German and Austrian Emperors. Please note that Kaiser is derived from CAESAR and not CEASER. As a native English speaker does not mean that I am limited solely to common English usages.

[pgr]

1 August
[ATTACH]29720[/ATTACH]

[H Gilmer3]

Hey, hey, hey, let's not start WW3 over WW1.

[elxaime]

GERMANY DECLARES WAR UPON RUSSIA
August 1, 1914
(Presented by the German Ambassador to St. Petersburg)

"The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea. In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany. The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with [not having considered it necessary to answer]* this demand, and having shown by this refusal [this attitude]* that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:

His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German
Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia."

[Shri]

I wonder which cannons are forcing German historians to consider Germany responsible for starting the Great War. No, reality is that it was indeed the German Emperor who made the war possible by his alliance with Austria-Hungary which was seen as agressor and occupier by most Balkan populations. Russia on the other hand was seen as a protector in at least Serbia and Montenegro. Lastly the Ultimatum was impossible to accept, no sovereign state could have survived had it accepted all of those points. And once Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia the only thing that could have stopped the war would have been Revolution, particularly in Germany. In addition to the starting situation, further blame lies on Germany for the attack on Belgium (and occupation of Luxembourg) and the anti-partisan commands issued to their troops which led to a large number of war crimes in Belgium and to a lesser degree France. You will not find a serious German historian to locate responsibility outside Germany and Austro-Hungary...

Lets start with occupation of neutrals-
1. Britain occupied Salonika but it was for the good of the Greeks but Germany occupying was bad.
2. Russia had occupied/conquered about a dozen or more "modern nations" but Austria taking over BOSNIA, which was incidentally under de-facto Austrian rule since the 1870s was bad.

Now empires-
3. Germans wanted to have an empire, who said it? the English and the French! the 2 nations with the largest empires of their own.
4. When wars are lost the national mood and morale drops and a person being told by the whole world that he is evil and surrounded by saints will feel so, Bismarck said it right- there is not any good or bad thing; no friends or enemies just national interests.

Ultimatum-
5. The heir to the throne was killed by an organisation whose creator and controller was the Serbian Prime Minister and was openly supported by the Army.
Lets say- Tomorrow, USA's president is killed by a lone gunman who is directly connected with the Pakistani Prime Minister/ISI/Army or some similar state-
What would the USA do??
6. French Revanche for Alsace Lorraine (which was part of HRE for over 500 years) triggered the Franco-Russian-British Entente! wasn't that posturing??

General-
7. Point of WW3 over WW1 made by another commenter- really good
8. There is a long list of imperial grievances for War Crimes-
Africa
India
South America
etc.
So that doesn't fit in, truth is the British Propaganda office created most of the 'TERROR', after the first week or 2 there was a military governor in place who ruled properly albeit harshly as there was a War going on; in the first week or so independent 'Reserve Corps' who were civilians gathered up 'lost discipline'.
Far worse was the attitude of Russians in 'East Prussia- read Alexander Solzhenitsyn who was an officer in Paul Von Rennenkampf's Army- Prussian Nights' or in Galicia.

[Shri]

GERMANY DECLARES WAR UPON RUSSIA
August 1, 1914
(Presented by the German Ambassador to St. Petersburg)

"The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea. In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany. The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with [not having considered it necessary to answer]* this demand, and having shown by this refusal [this attitude]* that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:

His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German
Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia."

That statement is the second last blunder (last is Zimmerman) by the Imbecile Foreign Office of Wilhelmine Germany, War is no place for Parlor Game niceties and Declarations are unnecessary, if needed let the Russians declare, Attack and Declare war only on France and half the post-war guilt would not be there.

[caranorn]

http://www.anlux.lu/multi/files/En%20vitrine/AE-00405_Telegramm_Begrndung_Einmarsch_2_8_14.pdf

The german justifications for violating Luxembourg's neutrality. Essentially claiming inteligence that french troops were planning to violate Luxembourgish neutrality and therefore Germany were reacting. In fact first German units had entered Kuxembourg on August 1st to withdraw again during the day (apparently mixed up orders), formal occupation started early in the morning of August 2. No french troops entered Luxembourg during this period, to the contrary they had started breaking up rail infrastructure August 1 on the Luxembourg-French border to prevent rapid advance by German troops known to be in Luxembourg...

[caranorn]

Lets start with occupation of neutrals-
1. Britain occupied Salonika but it was for the good of the Greeks but Germany occupying was bad.
2. Russia had occupied/conquered about a dozen or more "modern nations" but Austria taking over BOSNIA, which was incidentally under de-facto Austrian rule since the 1870s was bad.

Now empires-
3. Germans wanted to have an empire, who said it? the English and the French! the 2 nations with the largest empires of their own.
4. When wars are lost the national mood and morale drops and a person being told by the whole world that he is evil and surrounded by saints will feel so, Bismarck said it right- there is not any good or bad thing; no friends or enemies just national interests.

Ultimatum-
5. The heir to the throne was killed by an organisation whose creator and controller was the Serbian Prime Minister and was openly supported by the Army.
Lets say- Tomorrow, USA's president is killed by a lone gunman who is directly connected with the Pakistani Prime Minister/ISI/Army or some similar state-
What would the USA do??
6. French Revanche for Alsace Lorraine (which was part of HRE for over 500 years) triggered the Franco-Russian-British Entente! wasn't that posturing??

General-
7. Point of WW3 over WW1 made by another commenter- really good
8. There is a long list of imperial grievances for War Crimes-
Africa
India
South America
etc.
So that doesn't fit in, truth is the British Propaganda office created most of the 'TERROR', after the first week or 2 there was a military governor in place who ruled properly albeit harshly as there was a War going on; in the first week or so independent 'Reserve Corps' who were civilians gathered up 'lost discipline'.
Far worse was the attitude of Russians in 'East Prussia- read Alexander Solzhenitsyn who was an officer in Paul Von Rennenkampf's Army- Prussian Nights' or in Galicia.

1) Salonika was in 1915, so after Germany's armed violation of Belgian nutrality. Also it's in no way as clear cut whether the Salonika landings were a violation of Greek neutrality as Greece's prime minister had authorised the British move.

4) German historians definitelly do not work from that angle? Why would a historian 60-100 years after the war act be affected by supposed outside influence? No, they established their opinion based on records of the war.

6) Having been part of the HRE is no argument for occupation by Germany, else a lot of territory could be so occupied. The HRE is not the simple predecessor of the WWI era German Empire (a lot of states which had been part of the HRE had opted not to join the new Empire).

7) Unfortunatelly a lot of parralels between WWI and the current global situation exist. The major one being a blind alliance system where one power can push others into a war. Another being demonatisation of the other side.

8) I assume you are refering to Belgium here. While British propaganda indeed exagerated some reports from occupied Belgium, it is neverless a demonstrated fact that the Rape of Belgium did occur. Likewise persecution of civilians in France and unnecessary destruction of civilian property. ('Reserve Corps' what are you talking about? maybe Landwehr?) In any case, British crimes within the Empire are irrelevant to this argument which is about whether or not Germany was responsible for starting WWI and did perpetrate crimes in the pursuit of that war.

[Franciscus]

The notion that Germany was responsible for WW1, even that they wanted it is of course the mainstream one, one that has been taught us in school and in ever run-of-the mill book about WW1.
Nothing new there, we all "know" it.

But as always things are not only black or white.

Recently I read an excelent english book by Christopher Ckark ("The Sleepwalkers") that sheds a new light on facts and makes one at least think again about the "truth" that we all "know" for certain.

Regards

[Palpat]

Why it is written in French, because this was the expected diplomatic language?

There is even two spelling & grammatical errors.

[Baris]

2. Russia had occupied/conquered about a dozen or more "modern nations" but Austria taking over BOSNIA, which was incidentally under de-facto Austrian rule since the 1870s was bad.

It should be natural to be seen from general Allied perspective that Austrian Balkan policy matters while Russian control over central Asia not discussed. Both regions have nation states now and rightly so. For global alliances it is again creating similar circumstances ex: in the middle east against the new protectors and Ukraine situation. What did happen hopefully won't happen again.

[mariandavid]

At one time or another every European nation has been accused of causing and starting the war. The 'popular' view tends to be generated by politicians not historians - in the UK for a long time school texts proclaimed that Germany was the cause and Kaiser Wilhelm the villain for not reversing the Prussian Great General Staff decisions. Leaving apart the heated debate over the relative fault of Serbia and Austro-Hungary in triggering the local conflict, today the consensus (if such a thing exists among historians) is that the primary cause lay in Russia. Specifically the decision of the Army Staff WITHOUT orders to start the mass movement of trains towards the German and Austrian borders. What made it worse was the ignorance of the Tsar (he being pretty ignorant anyway) that any of this was happening, so that when his German cousin approached him it seemed that Russia was indeed engaged in a secret surprise attack.

On a few of the points raised earlier, and in no particular order:
- AH taking over Bosnia mattered only in that it a:made Russia suspicious and b: encouraged Serbia to join Greece and Bulgaria in attacking the Ottomans

- 'morganatic marriage' - not as fixed as some think. A marriage was only morganatic if the monarch said it was (degrees of nobility are vacuous and trembling) - so if FF had survived the attack and come to the throe when his father died, his first action would have been to declare his own marriage legitimate, and I doubt if anyone would have argued otherwise!

- of course Serbia could have accepted the ultimatum. It was time and place defined and its actions rigorously limited to finding the secret police and the Black Hand. Now granted it could have been gentler but that's what happens when your heir to the throne and his extremely popular wife are assassinated. I seriously wonder if any nation would not have issued a similar ultimatum, especially since all of Europe knew the Serbian government was involved to some degree.

[Franciscus]

Precisely

It is also extremely interesting to actually read the austrian ultimatum and the real serbian responses

Regards

[Shri]

It should be natural to be seen from general Allied perspective that Austrian Balkan policy matters while Russian control over central Asia not discussed. Both regions have nation states now and rightly so. For global alliances it is again creating similar circumstances ex: in the middle east against the new protectors and Ukraine situation. What did happen hopefully won't happen again.

I agree with you and your opinion is right. I was just pointing out facts that WARS are not a case of Black-White as stated by the poster and a matter of 50 or 100 shades of Grey (Double Pun intended :thumbsup .

[Le Ricain]

At 23:00 on the 4th of August, Great Britain declared war...

The attachment photo.JPG is no longer available

[StephenT]

Indeed! I too believed Kaiser was only for the German big boss

It was.

The ruler of Austria-Hungary was not called the Kaiser. He was the Kaiser-und-König. The Hungarians would have started a revolution if he left off the "und König" bit.


As for war guilt: after WW1 was over, everybody (except the Germans, of course) blamed Germany for starting it. But then the mood changed, and the idea that everybody was at fault, and it was unfair to blame Germany alone, became the consensus among most historians.

Then in the 1950s a German historian found new documentary evidence that the Germans had been planning to start a World War even before the ultimatum to Serbia was sent, and they'd pushed the Austrians into declaring war for their own reasons. Nowadays, most historians don't give Germany the sole blame for war, but they do assign a larger share of the blame to her.

Here's the account written by the Austro-Hungarian diplomat Alexander von Hoyos of his meeting with the German government on 5-6 July 1914: (Count Berchtold was the A-H foreign minister who sent Hoyos to Berlin):

"I carried out Berchtold's instructions by stating that, once we had beaten Serbia, we intended to partition her territory among Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania. Zimmermann replied with a smile of satisfaction that this was a question concerning only ourselves and that he would raise no objections. Next day Bethmann officially informed Szözgyény and myself in the presence of Zimmermann that it was entirely for us to decide on the measures we were to take; in whatever circumstances and whatever our decision we should find Germany unconditionally at our side in allied loyalty. Twice over he said to me, however, that in his personal opinion, with things as they were, only "immediate action against Serbia" could solve our difficulties with her."

Check the date. 6 July is before Serbia refused the ultimatum, before the ultimatum was even written - for that matter, it's before the investigation had even discovered that there was any connection between Gavrilo Princip (who, remember, was an Austro-Hungarian subject) and anyone in Serbia. And yet, Austria-Hungary is already discussing with Germany how they plan to carve up Serbia after conquering the country, and Germany is enthusiastically encouraging them to take action as quickly as possible.

How you get from that to blaming Russia for the war, I really don't know.

[Le Ricain]

I would suggest that you read Clark's book. Encouraging A-H to take a hard line with Serbia hardly qualifies as kicking off a world war.

The escalation happens because Russia did not have a partial mobilisation plan. Russia could only mobilise against A-H and Germany, but could not mobilise against only A-H. Supporting Serbia meant mobilising against Germany and invoking the French mobilisation. Germany had no choice, but to mobilise against the threats posed by Russia and France.

[Kensai]

Check the date. 6 July is before Serbia refused the ultimatum, before the ultimatum was even written - for that matter, it's before the investigation had even discovered that there was any connection between Gavrilo Princip (who, remember, was an Austro-Hungarian subject) and anyone in Serbia. And yet, Austria-Hungary is already discussing with Germany how they plan to carve up Serbia after conquering the country, and Germany is enthusiastically encouraging them to take action as quickly as possible.

Yes, but by that date the Crown Prince was already shot and dead. These discussions would have been possible after that fact. Diplomats speaking happens all the time. This is not a smoking gun.

[Shri]

Russian Mobilization happened almost a week before 1st August, the Russians had moved troops into Russian Poland, now the pre-1914 Germany had very important territory of East Prussia- home to the Junker Officers and Administrators who were the ELITE of Prussia/Germany. They could hardly wait in patience while Russia moved 2 million men to their doorstep. If they had, they would have faced the situation faced by Stalinist Russia almost 3 decades later and been caught unprepared for war. The world would not have helped them then. They did what they could do in time; of course imbecile German Diplomacy for 25 years post Bismarck was the real reason; potential allies like- Italy, Japan, Greece, Rumania etc were turned into enemies. The KAISER was certainly a liability for Germany but also an asset for the UK and France with his wild and bombastic statements like- HUN etc. But that doesn't mean he was an all powerful autocratic warlord. In fact the Kaiser was not trusted by the top military and none of the plans were explained to him. Bismarck carried out several proposals without telling the Kaiser Wilhelm I much facts. He had planned to continue the same with his grandson, his grandson became over smart and dropped Bismarck in the first of his several stupid moves.
All this and several more incidents points out that- Kaiser Wilhelm II was a barking buffoon but not an irresponsible Warlord or a butcher of babies etc as per British Propaganda.

[StephenT]

Yes, but by that date the Crown Prince was already shot and dead. These discussions would have been possible after that fact. Diplomats speaking happens all the time. This is not a smoking gun.

The quote definitely disproves the assertion that Germany and Austria-Hungary were merely reacting to Russian intransigence. This was a planned act of aggression, decided in advance.

Discussions would have been possible if the Germans hadn't deliberately ignored or sabotaged every proposal that was made, instead urging the Austrians to declare war as quickly as possible before Russia had time to object.

Back in 1908, Russia and Austria-Hungary had almost gone to war; but Germany intervened and threatened Russia, and the Russians backed down. The tragedy of 1914 is that the Germans drew the conclusion from this that they could bully Russia any time they liked; while the Russians had drawn the opposite conclusion, that they would have to stand up to the bully next time around or else they'd always be a victim.

Russian diplomats made it clear that they were willing to allow Austria to demand compensation from Serbia, but not to conquer or vassalise Serbia outright. They made it clear in advance that any attempt to do so would be treated by them as an act of aggression. Germany and Austria thought they were bluffing, and went ahead. Then they realised the Russians were not bluffing; panicked; and tried to twist history to make it look as if the Russians were the aggressors for standing up to them instead of surrendering.

[Shri]

The quote definitely disproves the assertion that Germany and Austria-Hungary were merely reacting to Russian intransigence. This was a planned act of aggression, decided in advance.

Discussions would have been possible if the Germans hadn't deliberately ignored or sabotaged every proposal that was made, instead urging the Austrians to declare war as quickly as possible before Russia had time to object.

Back in 1908, Russia and Austria-Hungary had almost gone to war; but Germany intervened and threatened Russia, and the Russians backed down. The tragedy of 1914 is that the Germans drew the conclusion from this that they could bully Russia any time they liked; while the Russians had drawn the opposite conclusion, that they would have to stand up to the bully next time around or else they'd always be a victim.

Russian diplomats made it clear that they were willing to allow Austria to demand compensation from Serbia, but not to conquer or vassalise Serbia outright. They made it clear in advance that any attempt to do so would be treated by them as an act of aggression. Germany and Austria thought they were bluffing, and went ahead. Then they realised the Russians were not bluffing; panicked; and tried to twist history to make it look as if the Russians were the aggressors for standing up to them instead of surrendering.

This is not 2014, but 1914 that we are discussing- this was truly the ZENITH of the Age of Empires, all Great Powers including USA had empires at this point of time; naturally Germany new to the party and Austria the oldest member of the party but who had been weak for the past 100 odd years were also keen to acquire more land. They decided to get those empires in Europe and hence Austria annexed Bosnia and then planned on annexing Serbia.
Russia had no business standing up to Serbian or any such rights as Russia had swallowed a dozen or more countries in the previous 100 odd years. The Russo-Japanese war was entirely due to Russian Imperialism in Manchuria and close to the Japanese Seas.
A Great Power's Heir being shot was serious business and this move was supported by the Serbian Prime Minister and senior Army Officers of Serbia who were also plotting to topple AH and establish an empire of the South Slavs- this was the key to Balkan War I.
Now, if all parties are trying to establish their own empires, then it is just a question of Might and not Right, Russia did not border Serbia but AH did and so it wanted to act against the Serbs to punish them for their misdeeds. Germany supported them, Russians mobilised in late July secretly against Germany and Austria and then pretended as if no such orders were given (German spies including Walther Nicolai - "more famous in WW2 as spy chief" reported the Russian Mobilization to the German General Staff around 26-27 July); MOBILIZATION was WAR in EUROPE 1914, the Franco-Prussian War had shown how the slower mobilizer lost the war, War was expected to be short but decisive, a matter of 3-4 months. So Mobilization before enemy was important. Rest is History.