Posted on 02/04/2011 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
When then-Sen. Barack Obama made a short video for the "peace caucus" delegates to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, he captured the enthusiastic support of his party's pacifist wing. It was enough to propel him to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton's ad -- showing a red telephone ringing at 3 a.m. -- only emphasized to party pacifists that Obama was their man.
And, of course, leading antiwar figures like George Soros heavily bankrolled MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets -- all echoing the same pacifist line. Pacifism -- as the name implies -- ought to lead to peace. But it too often doesn't.
In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.
On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.
Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon "all parties" to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as "mere scraps of paper" and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that "the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve." That would be the English Channel.
Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?
G.K. Chesterton, the famed English writer, tells us why in his memoirs. Chesterton was well-connected in Liberal Party circles. He wrote the Liberals were indebted to Manchester millionaires for their party's campaign financing. Those Manchester millionaires were religious pacifists. They would not have tolerated any blunt, direct warning to Kaiser Wilhelm from Sir Edward Grey or from the Liberals' prime minister, H.H. Asquith.
To close this loop, however, it is necessary to show that the headstrong Kaiser would have been deterred by such an unambiguous warning. Fortunately, such evidence exists.
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett is the greatest of diplomatic historians of the interwar period of 1919-1939. In the summer of 1939, Sir John visited the ex-Kaiser at his exile home in Holland. There, on the eve of a second horrific conflagration, the deposed German emperor confirmed to this young British scholar that if he had only known that Britain would declare war, he would never have allowed his generals to invade Belgium!
Thus, we see how the entire world was dragged into the cataclysm of World War I -- with its 20 million dead. Out of what Winston Churchill called the world crisis was born Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Arab nationalism. We can trace to World War I some of what we are seeing on the streets of Tripoli, Cairo, and Amman even today.
I was fortunate to have Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as my professor of diplomatic history at the University of Virginia. I have not forgotten his worldly wisdom. It was thus with the deepest misgivings that I watched as our unprepared president advanced from one dangerously naïve statement to another as he sought and won the presidency.
Mr. Obama's bowing to desert despots, his fawning speech in Cairo, his signing of an appeasing treaty with Russia -- within days of the exposure of a Russian spy ring! -- all of these communicate U.S. weakness and increase the danger to steadfast American allies -- like Israel and the newly free states of Eastern Europe.
Let us hope that President Obama pulls back from his party's pacifist majority in time.
There was never a real prospect that Britain would not fight if Germany violated its treaty on Belgium. But a clear, strong "shot across the bow" might have prevented the horror of the trenches.
Ronald Reagan said that "no war in my lifetime has taken place because America was too strong." He set about rebuilding our "hollowed-out" military and repairing the damage done by four years of the invertebrate Jimmy Carter.
President Obama is gutting our defenses and broadcasting his belief that America has been the obstacle to world peace -- until, that is, the Obama administration, bedecked with olive leaves and holding doves in its extended hands, was installed. No more hazardous mindset can be imagined. Peace through strength has ever been the safest of policies for this Great Republic.
That was the plan, but Russia mobilized much quicker than Germany expected, and deployed onto German territory into East Prussia, before Germany had adequate defenses deployed.
This was a shock, and why the German commander wanted to pull the troops back to the Oder and abandon all of East Prussia and Koenigsberg to the Russians.
First Masurian Lakes was a shocker. And they called it Tannenburg for the same reason as the first battle of Tannenburg, over much the same terrain. The alliance of Poles and Lithuanians finally managed to smash the Knights.
Perhaps the most critical effect, is the fact that Moltke deployed divisions from the west (which didn’t arrive in time), and away from the western Front. Troops that weren’t available at the First Battle of the Marne.
The entire outcome of the war was pretty much decided in the first two months. German lack of confidence, prevented them from landing the knockout blow, but their adequate early defense, prevented them from getting knocked out.
After that it was all about the numbers. Germany simply could not win the war. Play it out at the end of 1914, and 9 times out of 10, they do worse than history says that they did. The 1 time in 10, they manage to hold out for 4 years, and defeat Russia.
“They did not want a two front war”
No, who would? Unfortunately, you can’t conquer Europe without dealing with both the east and the west.
“They needed one for France and Russia.”
Why? Because one or the other might attack them, and eventually the other when their back was turned? Possibly, originally. ut that’s not how it turned out, considering Germany moved first. And even if it was the case that they planned offensive operations just in case at some point in the future it became The World Against Poor Germany, we generally don’t condone such practices. The Soviet Union had reason to believe it might be invaded again, but that did not justify them building an Evil Empire in Eastern Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the meantime.
“When Russia invaded East Prussia, the war was on.”
Ugh. Please, please, please consult a timeline.
They had been neutral in European conflicts since Crimea, 60 years prior to the first world war.
The Entente was signed in 1904. The Schlieffen Plan was intially designed the year after. If the plan were designed to be an offensive plan, why did Germany wait 10 years to implement it?
It was designed as a reaction to the Entente as a defensive counterattack to the alliance of France and Russian.
“That was the plan, but Russia mobilized much quicker than Germany expected, and deployed onto German territory into East Prussia, before Germany had adequate defenses deployed.”
I’m at a loss as to how this translates into Germany not starting the war. Russia didn’t invade until two weeks after Germany declared war on them, and more than a week after Germany invaded Belgium. Thus commencing offensive operations against France—i.e. the beginning of WWI—which, by the way, unlike Russia never invaded them, even after war was declared.
“we generally don’t condone such practices.”
Oh really. Which is why Russia is the good guy here?
Look, America so far is 2 for 2 for coming in late to European wars, leaving Britain and France out to dry, and fighting just in time to save their communist allies.
They did it in 1917, only coming in after the Revolution, and they did it again in 1941, in coming in at Pearl Harbour, after Barbarossa and the Russians were in.
Russia never invaded Germany?
Look up a map of Tannenburg. It’s clear as day.
“Outside of Jutland, the naval campaign was basically irrelevant through the first world war”
I bring up Germany’s naval build-up not as it relates to their fighting capacity in the war, but as it relates to the diplomatic climate of the prewar years. The strategic value of Germany’s navy is irrelevant to the issue of who started the war and why. It is very relevant to the pre-war psychology of Britain, France, Russia and Germany’s “arms race.”
“True, they could have surrendered.”
Surrender? How? No one was fighting them!
“Russia had a 2:1 manpower advantage”
Yeah, and I can give an AK47 to a chimpanzee, but that doesn’t mean he can win a duel against me and a slingshot (that is, if I knew how to use a slingshot). The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if Germany was so successful against Russia it is because Russia isn’t as powerful as it seemed. Manpower isn’t everything.
“Germany knew that war against everyone in 1914 was suicide”
No, they didn’t. They thought they’d win; that’s why they started it. Contrary to popular revisionist history, nations do not start wars because they are afraid. It’s the opposite, actually. Which is why the best way to avoid war is to scare people.
“Metternich’s system was designed to keep France from doing what she had just done, and conquer all of Europe.”
And it wouldn’t have worked if France had continued to be what it recently was.
“This is why 1870 was such a surprise. Prussia alone took on France and won. They had the plan, and the intiative, France did not.”
Exactly. They didn’t count on an aggressive Germany. Just like, later, they didn’t accurately gauge Hitler. Just like Kissenger mistakenly believed the Soviet Union and the U.S. were morally and strategically equivalent.
“So what were all those wars for?”
Ask Germany and Germany.
“I bring up Germany’s naval build-up not as it relates to their fighting capacity in the war, but as it relates to the diplomatic climate of the prewar years.”
Yeah, Britain wasn’t happy with their naval build up, but the Germans were unwilling to suffer losses, and the British were never challenged. The reason Germany was unwilling to suffer losses is because their navy was far inferior to the Royal Navy.
“Yeah, and I can give an AK47 to a chimpanzee, but that doesn’t mean he can win a duel against me and a slingshot (that is, if I knew how to use a slingshot). The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if Germany was so successful against Russia it is because Russia isn’t as powerful as it seemed. Manpower isn’t everything.”
True, Russia had defects in both command and deployment. Edges where Germany had the advantage. However, their manpower was signficant enough that they were fighting on Austrian territory, well into 1917, prior to the collapse.
At the very worst, a stalemate. Tannenburg saved Germany from outright defeat, it wasn’t what knocked Russia out of the war.
“No, they didn’t. They thought they’d win; that’s why they started it.”
They were so frightened of the Entente that they put together the Schlieffen Plan. As an effort to try to compensate for the overwhleming disadvantage they would have in a two front war against France and Russia.
“Contrary to popular revisionist history, nations do not start wars because they are afraid.”
I don’t see how quoting the German high Commander in Moltke, and his belief that Germany would lose prior to the first world war, is ‘revisionist’.
“And it wouldn’t have worked if France had continued to be what it recently was.”
Actually, it worked pretty darn well, until France allied with Russia to start off the worst century in the history of man. Pax Americana has lasted 65 years, which is 2/3rds what Metternich acheived. See where we are 35 years from now in 2040.
“Ask Germany and Germany.”
You mean, ask Russia and Germany? The aggressors in both wars. Russia wanted the Porte, which didn’t work out so well, did it? It’s taken nearly a century, but most of what she’s conquered has been given back.
“If the plan were designed to be an offensive plan, why did Germany wait 10 years to implement it?”
First of all, because, as I’ve been saying, it was also their plan to look like the victim. And you can’t do that until after France and Russia look—to people who don’t know better—aggressive, for instance during an international crisis like the Austro-Serbian war.
Secondly, it was never my position that Germany’s entire leadership was war-crazy. The belligerent faction carried the day, eventually, and for reasons relating to the frenzied circumstances and the perceived weakness of Russia, France, and Britain.
It’s not as if I imagine Germany planned world domination in 1905, then sat on their hands and waited for the right time to spring their trap, like evil geniuses. This describes some of them, no doubt. The big story is that they were upstarts and an emerging power, with a proven propensity for aggression (as in 1870), that had a contigency plan for continental domination which happened to be put into practice when the war faction got their way.
It’s not necessary to ask why they acted when they did, specifically, except to say that they must have thought they could get away with it. Either that, or they went crazy. The main point is that they did it. It was carried out. Not successfully, but nobody’s perfect.
“It was designed as a reaction to the Entente as a defensive counterattack to the alliance of France and Russian.”
Counterattack? For there to be a counterattack, there must first be an attack. Germany attacked (Belgium) first. How was this “defensive”? It wasn’t. I can’t understand why you take Germany’s perceived fear of France and Russia so seriously all these years later. Germany’s the one who invaded first. If France and Russia were paranoid by mobilizing, they had reason to be. They were right! Germany was bent on European mastery.
If Germany was isolated and had much to fear from its neighbors, France and Russia, though they had eachother, also had much to fear. Which ones’ fears were more justified? Tie goes to the countries that don’t declare war and invade first.
“fighting just in time to save their communist allies
They did it in 1917, only coming in after the Revolution, and they did it again in 1941, in coming in at Pearl Harbour, after Barbarossa and the Russians were in.”
Are you arguing this is anything but a coincidence?
“Russia never invaded Germany?”
I never said that. Or if I did, I meant they didn’t invade until after Germany declared war and invaded Belgium (i.e. started WWI). Whatever Russia did after that was perfectly justifiable.
Rubbish. The German Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 were clearly designed to take maritime supremacy away from the UK. In the context of a land war against France or Russia the German Navy was irrelevant. It could only threaten the UK. But unlike Germany, the UK needed control of the seas for survival, so the German naval expansion was a "clear and present danger" which drove British foreign policy throughout the early years of the century
The need to concentrate the Fleet in Home Waters drove the alliance with Japan in 1902, the Entante with France in 1905, and Russia in 1907. And the 1912 agreement with France which allowed the Mediteranean Fleet to be moved to Home waters. Once that was in place, Britain was committed to the alliance with France in the event of a German attack.
Germany also conducted an aggressive war against British shipping in 1914. It was only because the German Navy was successfully contained after that that made the naval was "a mere sideshow". That the blockade worked does not mean it was unnecessary.
“They were so frightened of the Entente that they put together the Schlieffen Plan.”
That makes sense. But it doesn’t explain why they’d put it into practice without being attacked. You’d only do that if you thought you could win.
“I don’t see how quoting the German high Commander in Moltke, and his belief that Germany would lose prior to the first world war, is ‘revisionist’.”
I’m not familiar with his reservations. But he wasn’t the only hawk in Germany, and I’m sure others weren’t so wishy-washy. Either his hesitation was genuine but he felt caught up in events and outvoted by the war faction, and therefore pushed for what was thought to be the best way to win a two-front war. Or the Chief of Staff incited a war he knew couldn’t be won and therefor stands as one fo the stupidest and most heartless figures in world history.
“You mean, ask Russia and Germany?”
No, I don’t.
“propensity for aggression (as in 1870)”
On the part of Germany or Prussia?
I wouldn’t regard the unification of Germany as an aggressive action.
Would you regard the Prussia vs Austria war to be aggressive? How about the 7 years war? Prussia more often than not has been the little guy fighting against the powers of Europe.
They fought against Russia and survived, against France, and survived. France, which had for the last 350 years, bullied everyone in Europe.
Prussia declares war on them, to try to unify Germany, wins the war, calls for the armistice, and demands the cessation of Alsace-Lorraine.
Territory that the Sun King had taken from Germany. You might as well call Lexington an aggressive action. The Kaiserreich was a union of Germans, like America is a union of Americans.
If Americans would regard the Revolutionary war as emancipation, the unification of Germany is the same thing.
By the way, it’s a fact well established in historical scholarship that Germany started the war. It hasn’t been controversial since the publication in the 60s of the research into German archives of Fritz Fischer and others. No one much argues with it anymore, except to make vague arguments about militarism, nationalism, imperialism interlocking alliances, and arms races. And even these amount to not much more than historical/cultural determinism. “Germany did it, but its not Germany’s fault because it was born in poverty, its mom abused it, and its dad was systematically discriminated against.”
Not that scholars are always right, even in unanimity. But in this case, they are. I suggest you check out: “Europe’s Last Summer” by David Fromkin. Or, one of my favorites, “Closing Pandora’s Box” by Patrick Glynn.
British fears were unwarranted.
The French Navy was larger than the German at the time of the war. Let alone during the buildup. Germany had practically zero navy in 1870, and even by 30 years later was far inferior to even Russia.
That they would ally with France to protect their naval supremacy is bizarre, they had just spent close to 30 years battling them to reach naval supremacy in the first place.
Germany needed a navy in the Baltic to control the straits and protect their shores.
Conquer Europe?! Where did you get that whooper? Imperial Germany had no such goal. It is true that it backed Austria Hungary on Serbia but that was a localized conflict. It was also a complicated one. Serbia, after all, had been constantly making trouble in Bosnia and it was clearly complicit in the assassination of the Archduke. The Austro-Hungarians felt that Serbia (backed by its pan Slavist big brother) would be making trouble on its southern borders for decades to come. I doubt most of the "nationalists" here would have tolerated similar behavior from Mexico in our territory.
Even after the dominoes started to fall, Germany's broader "conquest" goals were limited to Belgium, and perhaps additional colonies in Africa. That, combined with the independence of pro-German states in the Ukraine, the Baltics, etc., is pretty much the worst case scenario had we stayed out. Compare that to what actually happenened and it looks great!
BTW, those who cry crockodile tears about the Belgium monarchy (which had plenty of blood on its hands in the giant prison of the Congo Free State) never seem to care that the allies violated Greek neutrality during the war.
“On the part of Germany or Prussia?”
Germany’s military caste was at its inception, and remained long thereafter and up to 1914, of Prussian decent.
“wouldn’t regard the unification of Germany as an aggressive action.”
Okay, I realize France declared war first. Instead of “propensity for aggression,” I meant to say “capacity for aggression.” They proved to everyone they could fight well in 1870, is the point. And if they could do it then, they could do it again.
“Prussia more often than not has been the little guy fighting against the powers of Europe.”
So? You can’t be little and be the aggressor? That seems to be a large part of your argument: France, Britain, and Russia were big and scary, therefore Germany had the right to attack them “defensively.” I don’t buy it.
If you think bailing out the Serbs justifies the slaughter of an entire generation of Europe (and to some extent) America's brightest, you have little sense of proportion.
“Germany’s military caste was at its inception”
As a unified state, that is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.