Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Is Napoleon that non-Frenchman ?

He was born in Corsica, which naturally makes him 50% Italian EDIT: Honestly though he was born a year after France took over the island from the defunct Republic of Genoa.

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly though he was born a year after France took over the island from the defunct Republic of Genoa.

Yeah, I know. We actually learn about that during history lessons in high school. Hence the question.

I'm probably a mix of B and C, I feel that we shouldn't glorify the war and that it was a waste of innocent life. However we shouldn't forget those who died in it as would be disrespectful to those who died for their country.
We shouldn't glorify the war but we should honour those who were in it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly though he was born a year after France took over the island from the defunct Republic of Genoa.

Yeah, I know. We actually learn about that during history lessons in high school. Hence the question.

Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine. Napoleone was a Corsican, not a Frenchman.

This reminds of of the constant unending 5 year edit war on Wikipedia about whether Saladin was Arab or Turkish (or occasionally Armenian) XD

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine.

No, it does not. I did not say it did. What would make Napoleon a French would be if he considered himself a French more than a Corsican. I do not know what where his views on the matter, but those are what matters. Well, what would matter if we actually cared about whether or not Napoleon was French.

George Washington was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia when it was still a British Colony, therefore he's a damn Brit! Birthers unite! Burn your dollar bills and quarters in protest!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine.

No, it does not. I did not say it did. What would make Napoleon a French would be if he considered himself a French more than a Corsican. I do not know what where his views on the matter, but those are what matters. Well, what would matter if we actually cared about whether or not Napoleon was French.

Agreed. It doesn't really matter, since the whole "France only does well when not being led by a Frenchman" thing is ridiculous anyways, as WW1 also proves.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.

I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame.

One, there are people who know. I've been pointing it out for pages now. You can accept the evidence (which is abundant) that Germany was the only nation involved that took purposeful action to create a European war, the standard that I personally feel is sufficient to assign them the lion's share of blame for the immediate events leading to the war, or not. That has nothing to do with who knows what.

It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.

And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence, Russian Pan-slavism, and French revenge fantasies (in their respective governments and the public) all pining for War as well. There is all the evidence you need to damn all parties involved. All of them were plotting on how to capitalize on the July Crisis and this dance of "Who is to Blame" is tired and old. Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.

Anyway, people have been going around and around on this for a century now. You can believe it was all Germany if you want. That's fine by me. However, for everyone else I encourage you to reach out and learn for yourself, and make your own decision.

Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start, but so is "A Distant Mirror" (Or was it called the Ivory Tower"?) as it talks a bit about the social constructs and assumptions around the outbreak of the war that helped guide the leadership to the decisions they made. Plus, there are literally thousands of books on the subject, some of them coming out recently with the anniversary. Don't take LordsofHats or myself at face value. Go find out for yourself. That is one of the best ways to remember World War 1.

 Easy E wrote:
And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence

A position that's never made much historical sense. The tension in Britain and Germany's relationship mostly came from Germany. See the disastrous Daily Telegraph incident.

All of them were plotting on how to capitalize on the July Crisis

No. They weren't. Britain and France in particular were dreading the outcome.

Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.

Broadly the war happened because of a mix of political obligations between nation states that dragged them all into a regional conflict one after the other whether they wanted to be there or not (This is what the Guns of August directly addresses). Narrowly, Germany orchestrated a major diplomatic incident into an international war (Any given specific history of the German state in the 20th century will point this out).

You can believe it was all Germany if you want.

I don't. If you bothered to read my posts instead of just ranting at thin air with my name on it, you might have noticed. I've made several metaphors, pointing out other things that led to the war, and said that I disagree with the Versailles treaty. At this point, you're just ranting at an argument no one is this thread is advocating while not even addressing the one I'm putting forward.

Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start,

Her work is also from the 60's. We know things now she didn't know then. History does not stand still.

John C. G. Röhl in his own work (published not long after hers) tackles many of the faults in her narrative and addresses more specifically German culpability in starting the war (his position is far harsher than mine however). I suggest reading Fritz Fischer. For a very recent author, read Chris Clark. There are also several collections of German government documents (the oldest and most known is the collection made by Karl Kautsky not long after the war). Really. One woman didn't define WWI history for all time in a single book in 1962. As important and valuable as her work is, its not the end. The flaw of popular history is that after reading one or two books, people tend to just stop and 'popular' is in that phrase for a reason.

When you read Jagow laughing at Britains attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully and German military leaders discussing how to prevent Russia from negotiating a peaceful resolution with Austria, and are presumably aware of the political climates of Russia and Austria at this time, you have a really hard time indulging the fantasy that Germany didn't play a special role in starting the war.

I hope I get all the quote blocks right. I'm not a master at this type of thing.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence

A position that's never made much historical sense. The tension in Britain and Germany's relationship mostly came from Germany. See the disastrous Daily Telegraph incident.

Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. The First Lord of the Admiralty; Jackie Fischer was making claims about "Copenhagen"ing the entire German High Seas Fleet. Essentially, a surprise attack to sink the German fleet in port by the Royal Navy. This is the same guy that basically had the Dreadnaught designed and built to render the entire German High Seas Fleet obsolete. I can't imagine why Germany might feel like Britain had a thing against them as the Old Power vs. the New"er" Power.

Plus, Britain and France were "secretly" negotiating military assistance and essentially aligning with the Entente Powers agains the Central Powers. Again, I can't see why Germany might feel like they were being "encirlced" or contained. After all, everyone knew that in a Great Power diplomacy you need 3 friends out of the 5.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.

Broadly the war happened because of a mix of political obligations between nation states that dragged them all into a regional conflict one after the other whether they wanted to be there or not (This is what the Guns of August directly addresses). Narrowly, Germany orchestrated a major diplomatic incident into an international war (Any given specific history of the German state in the 20th century will point this out).

You can believe it was all Germany if you want.

True. However, at any point a nation could have made the political decision to severe those ties or break those obligations. They did not. Therefore, they must have thought the political calculus was worth the risk. All of them felt their interests would benefit.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
[Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start,

Her work is also from the 60's. We know things now she didn't know then. History does not stand still.

Very true, but is is still a nice accessible start for those who want to dip their toe into the waters. Since then their have been many, many, many books on the subject. More than any one person could probably read.

 Easy E wrote:
I hope I get all the quote blocks right. I'm not a master at this type of thing.

Meh. I mess um up and need to fix them all the time. Damn / thingies.

Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. The First Lord of the Admiralty; Jackie Fischer was making claims about "Copenhagen"ing the entire German High Seas Fleet. Essentially, a surprise attack to sink the German fleet in port by the Royal Navy. This is the same guy that basically had the Dreadnaught designed and built to render the entire German High Seas Fleet obsolete. I can't imagine why Germany might feel like Britain had a thing against them as the Old Power vs. the New"er" Power.

Plus, Britain and France were "secretly" negotiating military assistance and essentially aligning with the Entente Powers agains the Central Powers. Again, I can't see why Germany might feel like they were being "encirlced" or contained. After all, everyone knew that in a Great Power diplomacy you need 3 friends out of the 5.

Making plans for war isn't the same thing as wanting war. There's a difference between pragmatism and warmongering. Of course, the pragmatism lead to the arms race, which never eased anyone's sense of insecurity.

It would be silly for us now to say that Germany felt surrounded. Of course they did and they were. Problem is that that's kind of a mess Germany, and King Wilhelm in particular, had a major role in. Bismark might have hated socialism and the labor movement, but he was a man who understood international relations and worked extremely hard to prevent a European war and he did a good job. Wilhelm threw him out for petty reasons, increasing France and Russia's nervousness. They'd been at ease with Bismark, and confident he could maintain the peace. Because he was thrown out they got scared and formed their alliance, then Germany lamented that they were surrounded on all sides. Prior to losing power, Wilhelm was a pretty crazy guy. No one could predict him and it made everyone nervous even after he lost power (the rest of Europe wouldn't really realize it till after the war).

Granted, this isn't what I'm talking about when I assign special blame to Germany. I'm talking in the strictist sense possible; that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Ferdinand, Germany existed in a unique position in Europe and unlike other European countries, made no real overture's of peace. They pretended to indulge their rivals, but really they had no interest in anything less than a full European conflict in a general sense.

I don't say that to say it was all their fault or deny the other far reaching causes of the war, merely to point out the immediate chain of events that led to the war.

True. However, at any point a nation could have made the political decision to severe those ties or break those obligations. They did not. Therefore, they must have thought the political calculus was worth the risk. All of them felt their interests would benefit.

Yeah, but none of them were going to do that. I don't hold it against Germany for holding to their treaty obligation to support Austria-Hungary in war. Rather, I hold it against them that they existed in a unique position to convince Austria not to go to war, but instead sabotaged negotiation attempts and egged Austria on to make sure the war happened.

Very true, but is is still a nice accessible start for those who want to dip their toe into the waters. Since then their have been many, many, many books on the subject. More than any one person could probably read.

That's why I always advise delving into more recent authors first actually. Fischer, Ritter, and Rhol are among the ground breakers in WWI history, but their work is more obscure than Guns of August, which wasn't ground break so much as a concise well written work for the lay person written in a time when the aformentioned ground breaks were just coming out of the woodwork. Her work as a result is dated and lacks newer findings and points of view. I don't agree with Chris Clark completely, but newer books like his incorporate past works into themselves, meaning that they take a wider account of our present knowledge.

I'd always say someone should start new and then work their way back.* It makes it easier to keep note of who knew what and when they knew it. Simpler for verifying the accuracy of different narratives

Use the footnotes people You'll actually find funny stuff, like people attributing information and opinions to works that don't contain them!

For another (very) interesting read, check out a book called "Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914" (or something close to it... it does start with sleep walkers)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
For another (very) interesting read, check out a book called "Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914" (or something close to it... it does start with sleep walkers)

That would be Chris Clark's book.

Also if you'd like to learn about the important (and forgotten) naval war, read Robert K Massie's Dreadnought and Castles of Steel. Seriously, the Royal Navy can't get enough credit for winning the war. While their record in protecting the convoys was patchy, they kept the german fleet bottled up and enforced a blockade that starved germany into submission.

Also the secrete economic games being played by American business in the war, namely our good old friend J.P. Morgan.

 Paradigm wrote:
For anyone that hasn't seen it, there was a docudrama on BBC2 (I think) over the last couple of weeks called 37 Days, with the final part next week, that covers the build-up to war. While parts are slightly embellished, it's worth a watch for anyone into this period. It also demonstrates rather nicely how easily Germany could have stopped/started the war.

I'll check it out. It's very easy for Germany to prevent the war by using 'coercions' against Austria. (or use limited alliance policy not a full fledged ones)
Basically Germany entered the war when not really ready. Germany may need to include south american states into its fold before going to war.

Basically by 1914. none of Europeans really aware of the real potentials of the United States of America.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands,

I think you mean Belgium, seeing as we were thankfully neutral during the Great War.

 BrookM wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands,

I think you mean Belgium, seeing as we were thankfully neutral during the Great War.

Good call that one.

That would have potentially kept Great Britain out of the war, which would have been huge, but it still would have dragged France into the war via their alliance with Russia (and if Britain chose they could still enter the war via other treaties if they chose). At best, WWI could have been smaller, but still a general European war.

Speaking from my knowledge of the Imperial Navy, Japan would have gotten involved no matter what. No way the people in charge would have passed up a primo chance to take a few Pacific islands. They used Britain as their justification in WWI but really they didn't care at all. They'd have found another excuse or just attacked outright.

I think Britain's entry without an invasion of Belgium is hard to determine. I'm not an expert on internal British politics by far, but I've heard it both ways. They might have entered anyway or they might have stayed neutral. I wonder myself about unrestricted submarine warfare and how that might have played out in Britain. Britain kind of held the war together for a time on the western front. I question that Britain would have stood by and done nothing with Germany about to win and France tettering on toppling over, but then it might have happened far too quickly for Britain to react in time if events went that path.

 BrookM wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands,

I think you mean Belgium, seeing as we were thankfully neutral during the Great War.

Yeah, i had a complete brainfart on what that country was called, lol

 LordofHats wrote:
I think Britain's entry without an invasion of Belgium is hard to determine. I'm not an expert on internal British politics by far, but I've heard it both ways. They might have entered anyway or they might have stayed neutral. I wonder myself about unrestricted submarine warfare and how that might have played out in Britain. Britain kind of held the war together for a time on the western front. I question that Britain would have stood by and done nothing with Germany about to win and France tettering on toppling over, but then it might have happened far too quickly for Britain to react in time if events went that path.

Some would argue tha tif the BEF hadn't been on the continent for the Battle of the Marne, then the Schlieffen Plan might have actually worked and knocked France out of the war pretty early. I don't agree, but some writers feel that way.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands,

I think you mean Belgium, seeing as we were thankfully neutral during the Great War.

Yeah, i had a complete brainfart on what that country was called, lol

Quite alright, I'm actually surprised that we managed to pull off neutrality and stay that way for the entirety of the war.

 Easy E wrote:

Some would argue tha tif the BEF hadn't been on the continent for the Battle of the Marne, then the Schlieffen Plan might have actually worked and knocked France out of the war pretty early. I don't agree, but some writers feel that way.

There's also the Russian attack in the East which Germany wasn't prepared for and thought Russia wouldn't be ready to launch. Their redeployment of reserces intended for the final push of Schlieffen weakened the attack and improced France and Britain's chances.

I don't mean strictly the Marne but the war overall. There were time where the French army (espeically in late 1916 to mid 1917) was kind of on the edge of collapsing on itself and Britain held the defenses of the front in one piece while they tried to get their house in order. The inactivity of the Germany navy was also important. A Germany navy free to roam the seas would have been disasterous.

Just a timeline to add to the discussion on 'who was to blame'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28th:- Assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

July 5th:- Count Szogyeny, Austrian Ambassador to Germany delivers a letter from Emperor Franz Josef to Kaiser Wilhelm II. The letter questions what German policy would be if Austria Hungary decided to 'punish' Serbia by 'isolating Serbia and reducing her size'. The Kaiser responds that Austria-Hungary could "rely on Germany's full support". The Kaiser then goes on holiday for three weeks.

July 7th:-Austrian Council of Ministers convenes to decide on peace or war.

July 23rd:- Austrian note of demands presented to Serbia. The note was deliberately designed to be rejected, involving conditions such as firing all army officers and schoolteachers critical of Austria-Hungary, and the arrest of a number of specifically named high ranking individuals. Serbia given exactly two days to respond.

July 24th:- Britain and Russia attempt to have the deadline extended. The Austrians refuse. Britain and Russia bring pressure to bear on Serbia to accept as many terms as possible. The Russian Foreign Minister suggests placing the matter before the International Court in the Hague.

July 25th:- Serbian officials declare they are prepared to accede to all demands except the one demanding that the Austrians would be able to participate in the judicial enquiry into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as this would violate their constitution and laws of criminal procedure. Austria refuses to accept this.

July 26th:- Britain tries to arrange a Four Power conference in London on the issue.

July 27th:- France and Italy accept, Germany declines, with the Kaiser stating upon return from his holiday that he would only participate on Austria-Hungary's explicit request for him to do so.

July 28th:- Paris informs Russia of France's full and active readiness faithfully to execute her responsibilities as ally'.

July 29th:- Austria declares war on Serbia. The Tsar telegraphs the Kaiser urging him to try and get the Austrians to show some restraint. The Kaiser refuses. Shortly afterwards, the Austrian artillery opens up on the Serbian capital. Upon receiving this news, the Tsar orders the mobilisation of four military districts. The Germans, having this telegraphed to them, formally demand a halt to any Russian mobilisation.

Meanwhile, the British propose to the German Ambassador that after occupying Belgrade, the Austrians cease hostilities and submit to mediation from Germany, Italy, France & Britain. Sir Edwyn Grey warns that, 'The British Government...could stand aside as long as the conflict remained confined to Austria and Russia. But if Germany and France should be involved, then the situation would immediately be altered and the British Government would be forced to make up it's mind quickly'.

German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg sends a message enquiring what the British response would be, if Germany assured that in the eventuality of war with France and success by Germany, Germany guaranteed the postwar territorial integrity of France and Belgium? The British refuse to even consider the question.

July 30th:-The German Chancellor is worried by the British responses thus far. He twice telegraphs the German ambassador (Tschirsky) in Vienna a recommendation that Austria agree to the previous British proposal of mediation. When informed, the Austrian Foreign Minister coolly responds that this would be 'out of the question'. The Austro-Hungarian Empire then announces full military mobilisation. Despite pressure from German generals to do so the same, the German Chancellor refuses to decide at that moment.

Meanwhile, The French President summons the British Ambassador, Sir Francis Bertie, and pushes for Britain to 'take a stand'.

July 31st:- Russia declares a full mobilisation. Germany demands that Russia stand down within twelve hours, or Germany will mobilise as well, and declare war. Germany also messages Paris, requiring them to state whether or not they will remain neutral in the event of conflict. If the answer was 'yes', Germany demanded that France surrender the fortresses of Toul and Verdun as security on her pledge of neutrality. Paris was told they had eighteen hours within which to reply.

Britain telegraphs both France and Germany urging both respond Belgian neutrality regardless of what happened, France immediately agrees, Germany declines to comment.

August 1st:- German ultimatum to Russia expires without reply. Germany mobilises and declares war on Russia. The French deadline then expires without reply.

August 2nd:- The British Cabinet decides that they would only intervene if Belgian neutrality was violated. Later on that day, Germany issues an ultimatum to Belgium demanding passage for troops and surrender of several fortresses.

August 3rd:- King Albert of Belgium appeals to Britain for support. Germany declares war on France. France responds in kind. Britain demands Germany withdraw their ultimatum/any trespassing forces from Belgium within 24 hours.

August 4th:- The German Army crosses the Belgian border. Britain waits out the end of their 24 hour demand, and then declares war on Germany.

August 6th:- Austria-Hungary breaks off ongoing negotiations with Russia under pressure from Germany, and declares war on Russia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most ironic thing is that Austria-Hungary and Russia were the last ones to declare war on each other, despite initiating the whole thing.

While I generally agree Ketara, I think Bethmann Hollweg actions require the additional clarification; He was pretty much Falkenhayn and Tirpitz's bottom bitch. They told him to stall for time and he stalled. Wilhim likewise, offered his support only after prompting from his cabinet who then advised him to go on his vacation as planned so as not to raise any alarms. He in conspiracy with German command and Jagow deleted the last line of a British mediation message that read;

Also, the whole world here is convinced, and I hear from my colleagues that the key to the situation lies in Berlin, and that if Berlin seriously wants peace, it will prevent Vienna from following a foolhardy policy

Before sending the message to Austria. This line would have been a clear message to Austria that the war would not remain local as they theorized it would. Bethmann Hollweg later trepidation seems to have been a change of heart as it started to dawn on him what was happening, but he had limited control as Wilhelm could easily remove him with prompting from Falkenhayn.

I also think Nicholas should be mentioned as his initial mobilization of Russian troops was a mistake he didn't mean to make. He wanted them put on standby not mobilized and for there to be a focus on Austria-Hungary's border rather than Germany so as not to agitate the Germans. Tsarist Russia being what it was, that message got a little lost XD

 LordofHats wrote:
While I generally agree Ketara, I think Bethmann Hollweg actions require the additional clarification; He was pretty much Falkenhayn and Tirpitz's bottom bitch. They told him to stall for time and he stalled. Wilhim likewise, offered his support only after prompting from his cabinet who then advised him to go on his vacation as planned so as not to raise any alarms. He in conspiracy with German command and Jagow deleted the last line of a British mediation message that read;

Bethmann-Hollweg wanted Austria to swallow Serbia, but wasn't so much in favour of a general European war. I don't know a huge amount about Falkenhayn, but you definitely overestimate Tirpitz's level of influence/power in the government by 1914.

He pretty much single handedly stalled Bethmann-Hollweg's attempts to scale back the German-British naval arms race. Bethmann-Hollweg was one of a number of German officials who really wanted to mend the tension with Britain and he probably got some general support on this cause I don't think anyone in Germany really wanted that much to pick a fight with Britain, even those who favored a wider war.

I don't think Tripitz held much sway with many of his peers but he had a good friend in Wilhelm (at least in terms of wanting to expand the German navy), who being half British envied the Royal Navy and wanted one of his own. This conflict between the two men would have been around 1910-1911. I can't remember the exact year. I bring it up merely because its an important event in showcasing the weakness of the position of the Chancellor in German government in the years leading to the war. He had very little say in what did or didn't happen.

I don't think Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a war but he had relatively little power. The role of Chancellor meant very little by 1914. He was in a camp of policy makers who wante da repeat of the Balklands War so as to shift the balance of power away from Russia and to stabilize their southern ally as Austria-Hungary was in a very tettering position in 1914. Never the less he was one of the principle actors of the events that directly led to WWI in the summer of 1914.

I have sympathy of Nicholas because he was an adorkable guy horribly out of his depth who meant well, less so for men like Jagow and bethmann-Hollweg, who while limited in their power, shouldn't have been so naive. They played right into the hands of the German military establishment.

 LordofHats wrote:
He pretty much single handedly stalled Bethmann-Hollweg's attempts to scale back the German-British naval arms race. Bethmann-Hollweg was one of a number of German officials who really wanted to mend the tension with Britain and he probably got some general support on this cause I don't think anyone in Germany really wanted that much to pick a fight with Britain, even those who favored a wider war.

I don't think Tripitz held much sway with many of his peers but he had a good friend in Wilhelm (at least in terms of wanting to expand the German navy), who being half British envied the Royal Navy and wanted one of his own. This conflict between the two men would have been around 1910-1911. I can't remember the exact year.

I don't think Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a war but he had relatively little power. The role of Chancellor meant very little by 1914. He was in a camp of policy makers who wante da repeat of the Balklands War so as to shift the balance of power away from Russia and to stabilize their southern ally as Austria-Hungary was in a very tettering position in 1914. Never the less he was one of the principle actors of the events that directly led to WWI in the summer of 1914.

I'm not denying that Tirpitz was influential in previous years. Just that by 1914, he'd had his influence severely curtailed. The Kaiser had switched back to focusing on the Army, he'd been promoted into more of an administrative position, and his popular support had waned somewhat. So when you said that Bethmann was his 'bottom bitch', I'd regard that as inaccurate in 1914. Like I said, I don't know about Falkenhayn, but I suspect that Bethmann wasn't his either. The Army was quite powerful at that stage in time, but Bethmann did still hold a fair bit of influence of his own.

Bethmann was a typical politician of the era in a lot of war. He was happy to have Austria-Hungary swallow Serbia, because that advanced his nation's interests. Standard geopolitics. And that's nothing much to condemn him for, we here in Britain used to conquer, buy and sell chunks of land like they were batteries at a boot fair for the past thirty years before that.

Curiously enough, even the Kaiser wasn't too keen on war with Britain. He was quite happy to scrap with France and Russia, but he was very fond of his Grandmama (Queen Victoria), and spent a lot of his time yachting around British waters and socialising. The main reason he wanted his own Navy was not so much to rival Britain so much as it was to elevate Germany. He simply couldn't understand why Britain kept trying to stop him acquiring new toys like theirs. He was a singularly naive, boorish, passionate, and not very intelligent man.

My great great uncles were twin brothers (strongmen and acrobats in a travelling circus), another was an artist. Their lives were perfectly happy until they were conscripted.

All died in WW1, along with my great grandfather who survived but died 2 years later due to the after-effects of mustard gas.

Horrible and pointless waste of life. Any attempt to state that it was anything other than worthless is an insult to those who died as it glorifies the idiots in power who started it in the first place. The entire male side of my family tree were forced into dying at a young age in agony in foreign mud, for no reason, on the whim of the ruling classes.

It was pointless slaughter for no reason on a par with the holocaust as far as I'm concerned and the ruling politicians of the time were just as evil as the Nazis.