“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.