Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
I am not trying to limit it, but simply point out that Germany was right and just in its support of its Austrian ally.
|
All right and justice were nullified by the assurance
that the conflict could not be kept local.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
How do we know this Viking? Because you say so?
|
The history books say so.
In the West Germany massacred every attempt 1914-17
by the French
and British to break through its front.
If France had been the only opponent in the West, and if
the front had been half as long it would have been even
easier for the Germans. The French would not have been
able to win enough ground in which to bury their dead.
In the East against Russia I can rest my case with one
word: Tannenberg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
The fact of the matter is that the Russians, and their French allies, had numbers (in both men
|
Addressed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
and equipment) on their side,
|
The Russian army was gravely underequipped, and its
transportation system was a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
as well as technology in some cases.
|
In what cases? I recall reading that the French 75mm
gun might have been the best field piece of 1914, but
Germany had good guns too, and it had a lot of them
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
To allow both countries to fully mobilize and take the initiative would have been a massive risk.
|
The Russians did take the initiative in 1915 and they were
slaughtered at Tannenberg. In the West the French would
have had no alternative other than frontal assault against
prepared defences. They would have fared no better than
the Russians who at least had room to manoevre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
Keep in mind that while the combined German armies had crushed France in 1870, the German army of 1914 had seen no real combat since then.
|
Keep in mind that in 1864 the Prussian army had not seen
combat since Waterloo. Then after a small action against
Denmark it swept all before it against Austria and France.
And keep in mind that while Germany and France had
identical populations in 1870, Germany had 30 million more
than France in 1914.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
Furthermore, the French army of 1914 was not the French army of 1870.
|
What was so different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
Germany could simply not take the risk of allowing Russia and France to be the first to strike, and thereby seize the initiative.
|
Addressed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
So, what makes their diplomacy insincere in your eyes? Is it simply a matter of personal opinion?
|
I have found my copy of
Deadnaught by Robert Massie,
have you found yours?
On page 857 (1991 ed. hardcover) we find the Kaiser saying
this to the Austrian Foreign Minister:
"If his majesty Franz Josph demands some thing, the Serbian government must yield, and if she does not then Belgrade must be bombarded and occupied until his majesty's will is fulfilled. You may rest assured that I stand behind you as any ally and am ready to draw the sword."
This exchange took place on 10/26/13, long before
anyone had hurt a hair on Prince Ferdinand's head.
Germany had no intention of conducting sincere diplomacy.
On the contrary it gave Austria a blank check come what may:
no negotiation, no compromise, no solution short of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
You are correct, there were circles in Germany (the General Staff in particular) who were pushing for a war with France. Why? Because they saw that the gap (mainly quality) between the French and German armies was decreasing. They knew that their window to strike was closing.
|
I do not believe the German army was losing any ground
to the French army, and I challenge you to document your
assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorHammer
I would agree with you had they (Serbian nationalists) not shot the crown prince.
|
So- one man's life is worth risking the lives of millions
to you, huh?
That is a hairbrained attitude to take.