A First: New book about WW1 subs (but ...

[Catfish]

Hello,
i have not yet finished reading the book, but ...

As it is explained in this book William (or Wilhelm) the 2nd was not crazy, nor did he draw the rest of the world into a war. The situation in Europe and parts of Asia were on the brink of war regarding a lot of nations, indeed Wilhelm as the rest of the german military did not believe England would enter a war, and he himself most probably would not have without Sarajevo. After all he was a direct descendant of the British Royal family (and i always wondered where his spleen came from hrrrm), and had helped the British Commonwealth in China.

It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.

The official reason for England to join the war was the german march/invasion through Belgium, and this violation was due to the doctrine that Germany never expected to be able to win a war even at two fronts, let alone against the "rest" of the world.

The doctrine of the german military staff was to make a hopefully quick victory against France at all costs to buy time for gathering equipment for the war against Russia. England was not expected to support France and join the war, which certainly throws some light at the awareness and intelligence of german politics of the time. It indeed seems that England only waited for a chance to join a confrontation against Germany, the plans for the channel crossing and the "far blockade" were already done in 1907. As well Asquith seems to have intentionally used the declaration of war to keep his party at power in 1914.

The Kaiser: He was certainly a flaring monarch, as the rest of the royal world was at that time. The royal family in England preferred some distance to him because they did not want to be involved in Wilhelm's failure, and lose their own position in the British society. The US had already proven there was no real need for a expensive king or Kaiser in a modern society any more.

The Reichstag and a lot of Lobbyists as well as the "classic" military staff tried to influence Wilhelm, but it was not before the german chancellor left the stage in 1917 that he would listen to some military advisors - who seem to have been wrong for the whole time of the war right from the beginning.

Greetings,
Catfish

[horsa]

Thanks Catfish.

I take it there isn't ( as yet) an english translation of the book so I can't comment on its views.

If your review accurately represents the book then all I can say is OK its a point of view. I would certainly agree that WW1 wasn't such a clear case of "baddies v goodies" as ww2 has become, but I would still take some persuading that a somewhat neurotic head of state presiding over an autocratic system of government didn't destabalise europe into a major war.

[Catfish]

Hello,
Horsa thanks fo your comment, i believe all this this is probably hard to accept.
I have already posted some more parts of a "review" over at the aerodrome forum, if anyone is interested:
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/bo...-new-book.html
The contents of the book maybe highly controversial, but it is well worth a read. Schroeder does not really describe his point of view, but mostly quotes correspondence and witness reports that paint a different picture about WW1 than i thought i knew. I am almost thinking of translating the whole thing, but 400+ pages ...
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[horsa]

all this this is probably hard to accept.

I'll accept anything if its backed up by reliable evidence and reasoned impartially.

[peterloo]

[off-topic]AAH I've read Hilter's U boat war a year ago, when I borrowed it from a public library. Quite a good book and it's pretty informative [/off-topic]

No surprise that U boat captains use desk guns to sink targets - the torpedoes lack enough explosive charge (warhead is half of that in WWII while enemy ship size is similiar), the shortage of torpedo supply which means torpedoes had to be saved for large targets, means desk guns are necessary to sink ships, and that's why British could employ Q-ship successfully. Without luring a Captain to surface the boat and uses his gun, any hidden guns won't work

[Catfish]

Hello,
apart from the not-so-effective torpedoes (the book mentions that a half of them missed the target, and some did not explode, if only a few) there is another point regarding the law of nations (or international public law), and war crimes.

Through a periscope it was not easy to decide whether the target was a neutral, an enemy or a Q-ship. Since german U-boat commanders were instructed to thoroughly examine what kind of ship it was before an attack, this was a time consuming and dangerous task. The larger boats were fast enough and could stop any but very fast ships with the deck gun.
The boats of the Flanders flotilla were slow and had no deck gun, so they could not stop or outrun an enemy - they were to sink obviously hostile ships submerged, identified only by periscope.

Prize regulation according international public law :
- Enemy warships: These were allowed to be attacked without warning anywhere but in neutral harbours.
- Enemy trade ships (merchants): Allowed to be sunk anywhere with regard to international public law, the so-called prize regulation treaty.
-Neutral ships - they had to be stopped, searched, and its papers controlled, and only if the ship had contraband, weapons or whatever on board it was allowed to sink them. Again the crew was allowed to leave the ship.

The exception to this generally accepted practice was the unrestricted, or "total" war, as it was termed by England, which seems to have fought this kind of war since the beginning. Trade ships were sunk without warning, even in neutral harbours, together with designated hospital ships. The US protested against this kind of warfare, but to no avail.
Germany limited the unrestricted U-boat war to certain regions around England, but even then most U-boat crews again stopped the ships and let the crew leave before sinking it against the declared will of the Reichsmarineamt (Reichs Naval Office). Again this "unrestricted war" did only take place for a short time, and it was not so unrestricted, since there were hundreds of exceptions and regions where sinkings were not allowed.

The "Q-ships" were a u-boat trap in a double sense - if a boat remained at the surface because its course was crossing an "american" or other neutral ship that suddenly opened fire, it was mostly sunk within minutes. If a boat would have sunk an american ship suspecting it was a "Q-ship" there would be instantly an international uproar, probably drawing the US into the war. The Baralong Q-ship incident was one of those atrocities witnessed by american passengers, but it was then played down by the Entente propaganda.

Anyway all "Q-ships" did not have the impact that had been intended, and despite using them, the german U-boats still followed international prize regulations - indeed the tonnage sunk per month was even bigger than during the months of the unrestricted U-boat war.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Crinius]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.


Catfish

Thats the reason why I never in my live understood why Germany is accused of being igniting WWI. I recently read a book about Prussia. Theres a new study from US students. They found out that between 1800 and 1940 there were about 270 wars. Prussia/Germany was only involved in 8% of these wars. Guess what: Britain 28% and France 26%.

[Buddahaid]

That's because the winning side always writes the history in their favor.

Buddahaid

[Catfish]

Hello,
what i learned at school in Germany during the 1970ies was indeed that "we" started all major wars, and certainly were guilty of all war crimes ever committed.
Everyone even asking would be instantly declared as revanchistic and ultra-right - which in Germany simply means nationalistic and Nazi. It simply was and is a big "No" touching those themes.

As well Germany was (and often still is) equated with Prussia, which is certainly wrong since 1872, when Prussia became one state within numerous others. As well major parts of the former "Prussia" are now Poland.

It is as someone else mentioned, that WW2 and the atrocities against the so-called inferior races as well as concentration camps had blurred the view at the historical happenings before the 3rd Reich, and made all additional propaganda seem right -as if this additional propaganda would not even have been superfluous after what had happened alone from 1933-45 ... in that way we can "thank" Hitler for the view the world had and has towards Germany.

Who started the war ... the situation in Europe resembled a powder keg, and the assassination in Sarajevo ignited the spark. From a technical point of view it was Austro-Hungary, but this monarchy did not intend to fight anyone else than Serbia, which alone was certainly wrong enough.

It is just that the causes for England to join the war at France's side were not so unselfish as it seems. They did not like to have another nation join the "exclusive club" of colonial powers (England, France, Belgium), and the armament of the german fleet who had just become the second largest fleet after the UK's posed a threat on the seven seas, even if "Britannia..." still "...ruled the waves".

Indeed William 2nd intended to use the fleet internationally for securing the colonies, and german warships like the "Emden" and "Nuernberg" helped smash riots overseas - as other colonial powers certainly also had, and did.

Greetings,
Catfish

[horsa]

Guys, why not read a few more books/articles about the origins of WW1 before you jump to any conclusions. Get a more balanced picture. Clay Blair's book is only one point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
Hello,
It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.


Catfish

I don't know how you've ended up with this. Who actually declared war on who is not usually a matter of historical interpretation.
It was Germany who declared war on Russia on August 1st and then later on Aug 3rd declared war on France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I ( but choose your own source if you think this is history written by the victors)

[Catfish]

Hello,
i will still have to translate parts of the abstract and conclusion, i will at least have to at the aerodrome forum.
While some history probably is written by the "winner", reading some history books certainly helps . I do not write here how it really was - i am neither able nor in any position to do that. It is simply that this book and its quotations made me re-think about what i thought i knew.

Horsa, you are certainly right in that Germany declared war to Russia. However since Germany had an assistance treaty (or alliance? attack faction? is this the right word?) with Austro-Hungary it must have been clear for Russia, after declaring war to Austro-Hungary, it then would have to deal with both signers of that treaty. As well Austro-Hungary cannot have been too surprised Russia did not take their declaration of war towards Serbia without a reaction. And there can be no doubt that Austro-Hungary used the assassination in Sarajevo as a welcomed "occasion", or better pretext, to declare war on Serbia.

I may be wrong with the following, and have to re-read some passages in the books - i will definitely not trust the internet in that respect, even if i appreciate the Wikipedia project:

I am not so sure here that Germany declared war to France, and then later and not without a cause - there were already military hostilities by the french army trying to re-acquire the region of Elsass-Lothringen along the upper rhine, a region France had lost in the french-german war of 1871. It was however forced back by german forces, so there may already have been an officially undeclared war going on.
Following the book and the papers of the foreign offices Germany was forced into the war with France, and would not have started it - after all to prevent this dreaded two-front war which was considered impossible to win. For what is written in the book the german military did not see any other possibility as the Schlieffen-plan after the declaration of war had happened: To win at one front quick enough to have time, soldiers and enough support for the other one. According to the book Moltke literally had tears in his eyes after the french (!) declaration of war, saying " ... this two front war will probably end in an international war no one can want !". Mayby this is german propaganda of the time ?

Another thing is without invading Belgium Great Britain as a "guarantor of Belgium's neutrality" would have had no official reason to go to war against Germany.
England would only have had a reason to help France "... in case of ... [a country] ... declaring war to France ...", but this was not the official reason of England's declaration of war against Germany.

I will try to find evidence and post this here, until then you can consider this as unproven bull**** .

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[horsa]

I will try to find evidence and post this here, until then you can consider this as unproven bull****

No, I don’t think it is bull. What I do think is that you have a complex historical situation where every nation (to varying degrees) carries some responsibility for creating the Great War ( and yes, and that includes Britain as well ) The difficult bit is coming up with a judgement on who did most to propel the nations of Europe along this course. That is sufficiently complex to have occupied the minds of historians ever since 1914.

I believe that three things should be understood

1) In 1914 war was considered a legitimate tool of diplomacy.
2) All the nations had their own agendas, and (largely) acted with self interest.
3) Not everyone within any one nation had the same spin on things.( some had a good idea what “modern” war would mean, others were dangerously naive )

Cutting through a lot of complex issues, my own judgement is :-

1) The most unfair part of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was the “blame” clause. This caused the most resentment amongst Germans than anything else (and with justification). This made it easy for any tin pot narcisstic wannabe to set up a political party on the ticket of “lets make Germany great and respected again”. If it hadn’t been Hitler it would have been somebody else.

2) On balance the autocratic governments of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia were more irresponsibly belligerent than the democracies of France or Britain. But that is the nature of autocracies. As France, Britain and the USA were the chief architects of the Treaty you can see where the blame clause originated (however unfair). France was particularly bitter, and with justification.


What Blair’s book seems to be doing ( which I can only base on your notes) is reiterating the familiar argument that “Germany was threatened by encirclement and annihilation, forced into a war of self defense, and then humiliated by a Treaty which forced them to accept the total blame for everything, and made them pay punitive reparations”. That viewpoint is neither new, nor is it totally wrong. It’s also not particularly right either.

The “dangerous” thing is that certain impressionable minds ( hopefully not including you, Catfish ) will be too ready to accept that thesis as an absolute truth.
………….. or worse try and run with it as a rallying point for their own crack pot neurotic ideas. ( sounds familiar ?)



As a footnote

Horsa, you are certainly right in that Germany declared war to Russia. However since Germany had an assistance treaty (or alliance? attack faction? is this the right word?) with Austro-Hungary it must have been clear for Russia, after declaring war to Austro-Hungary, it then would have to deal with both signers of that treaty. As well Austro-Hungary cannot have been too surprised Russia did not take their declaration of war towards Serbia without a reaction. And there can be no doubt that Austro-Hungary used the assassination in Sarajevo as a welcomed "occasion", or better pretext, to declare war on Serbia.

You have just accurately described the inevitable tragedy of why Europe went to war with all its dire consequences.


.

[Robert Fulton]

Originally Posted by Catfish

...
Indeed William 2nd intended to use the fleet internationally for securing the colonies, and german warships like the "Emden" and "Nuernberg" helped smash riots overseas - as other colonial powers certainly also had, and did.

Greetings,
Catfish

I am currently reading "The Last Cruise of the Emden" by Edwin P. Hoyt. It is an amazing story of the cruiser and its crew who were in China when the war broke out in 1914. Hoyt is a prolific American author; I was familiar with him for his book on the USS Bowfin.

Highly recommend the Emden book; the Bowfin book is OK but nothing special.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Robert Fulton

Highly recommend the Emden book; the Bowfin book is OK but nothing special.

I second that. All of this stories are totally amazing. If you do not have interest in this subject this stories will draw you in!

I have the publications of the german naval archive and the stories blew me away. This skyrocketed my interest in this subject and there is a huge unexploited potential for gaming.

[Catfish]

Hello,
thanks for your comments. A bit lame here, all are posting at those modern sub forums from WWII and on ... how boring lol

@ Robert Fulton: Thank you for this book tip, i will try to get it. I have read von Luckner's book about the "Seeadler" and its fate as an auxiliary "cruiser", and about the "Emden", if not Hoyt's book.

@ Deamon: Yes, i'm from Germany, near Hannover. I am currently more interested in the time before WWII ..

There is also a good book with a half fictious story (but mostly historically correct) about another theme, a german trade steamer at lake Tanganyika (how does this spell in english?) from Alex Capus, title is "Eine Frage der Zeit" which would be "A question of time", but i do not know whether this has been translated or published in english (?). Really great to read. If you are interested i could post some links to sites having info about this steamer (the "Graf Goetzen" (ö=oe)).

Apart from that i am interested in the life of a distant relative (Berthold Schilling), who died in 1918 during a bombing mission aboard an airship. We have already lots of information and intend to write a half-fictious story about the airship that was involved.

Greetings,
Catfish