Definitely.
National Socialism vs. Communism.
-
The Nazis are damned because they “wanted the Jews to die first”, regardless of the active hostility of many other peoples and nations.
Suppose that some ancient Greek city-state was hit by a food blockade/famine conditions. And suppose that those who ran the city state wanted to make the feeding of citizens a much, much higher priority than the feeding of their slaves. Would you condemn those leaders in the same harsh terms you condemned the Nazis? If not why not?
Absolutely YES - I would condemn them, as I would condemn the institution of slavery (agreeing with wheatbeer). I condemn the Nazis even more than that because the Jews were not slaves. They were a free people that the Nazis first reduced to sub-human status and then sought to erase.
The Allied economic / food blockade killed millions of people. It did not target any single race or religion. It took the Nazis to do that.
The Nazis’ targeting of the Jews was not prompted by Jewish hostility, as they did not similarly target many other hostile peoples and nations across Europe in the same way. It was driven by the Nazis evil anti-Semitic views. You have accepted this.
A lack of evidence that the Nazis would have attempted to eradicate the Jews without the Allied imposed starvation is therefore irrelevant. This final step is all it takes to allocate guilt for the holocaust to the Nazis, whilst still holding the Allies guilty for the deaths of millions via the food blockade. As per a previous post, my ability to be persuasive on this point is damaged by the fact of it being obvious to me.
The only thing I can think to do is to offer an analogy, much as I don’t want to because they are terribly simplistic and rather risky!
- If you restrict the food I have to being sufficient to feed just 8 of the 10 people in a group for which I am responsible you are guilty of imposing starvation that kills two people.
- If I then feed 8 Christians but not 2 Jews (who may be hostile or unwilling to fight, or whatever, but so are others in my 10) then I am guilty of having targeted the Jews. This is genocide - “the systematic elimination of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group”. Since I decided to target that group specifically I am guilty of that genocide.
- Since you did not target any specific group you are not guilty of genocide, but you are guilty of two deaths.
- The guilt of neither party forgives the guilt of the other.
If you do not accept this then I fail to see what more I can say.
-
Private Panic, I think we are in agreement on most points.
The Allied economic / food blockade killed millions of people. It did not target any single race or religion. It took the Nazis to do that.
Granted. On the other hand, not only did the Allies use famine as a weapon against those living in German-occupied Europe, they also blocked Jewish immigration into Palestine or any other Allied-controlled territories. Then they proceeded to use the Holocaust as the centerpiece of their wartime and postwar anti-Nazi propaganda efforts. The success of that propaganda effort meant that the Allies were credited with fighting a “good” war; despite their mass murder of millions both during and after the war, and despite leaving the diabolical Soviet regime in control of the vast majority of postwar Europe. Given the absolutely central role the Holocaust played in Allied propaganda, we have to wonder how sad the Allied leaders really were that the Jews were unfairly singled out.
The only thing I can think to do is to offer an analogy
I agree with everything you wrote in that analogy, with the possible exception of one point. You seem to be assigning a lot of guilt and moral condemnation to the process of choosing two victims. Many or most civilizations throughout human history have engaged in “us and them” thinking, or in more extreme cases “us, them, and evil other” thinking. For the Nazis, Germans were “us,” Slavs were “them,” and Jews were “evil other.” Other civilizations–especially in polarized times–will assign different groups to “us,” “them,” and “evil other.” We do not normally describe a civilization or culture as “evil” for having embraced us versus them thinking.
It is very common for Allied propagandists to use one measuring stick for the Nazis’ actions, while using a completely different measuring stick for Allied actions. For example, German civilian bombing of Britain was vilified, and served as the basis for some Nuremberg convictions. Meanwhile, the much more massive Allied bombing effort against civilian targets in Germany was treated as legitimate military necessity.
My goal here is to avoid Allied-style hypocrisy, and to subject the Axis, Allies, and all other civilizations to the same moral standard. One measuring stick for everyone. If we describe the Nazis as “evil” for engaging in us-versus-them thinking, or for feeding “us” before feeding “them,” then we have to also apply that same “evil” label to any other civilization which engaged in us-versus-them thinking; or which would have used that thinking as a primary factor in food distribution during famine.
-
Hooray!
In response, Kurt, I’ll start by focusing on rather a lot of agreement:
Private Panic, I think we are in agreement on most points.
The Allied economic / food blockade killed millions of people. It did not target any single race or religion. It took the Nazis to do that.
Granted ……
The only thing I can think to do is to offer an analogy
I agree with everything you wrote in that analogy, with the possible exception of one point…
Sorry for the selective quotes, but I believe this means that we have agreed that the Nazis were guilty of genocide. Since that was my single focused aim I plan to take a rest after this post!
I won’t respond re Allied propaganda because I have agreed on this point in its broadest sense in the past. There is a challenging debate to be had on whether the UK & US (not the Soviets) did their best in the most difficult circumstances, as I have previously posted, but I do not plan to have it!
Before going for a lie down I will, however, respond on something else that you said:
Many or most civilizations throughout human history have engaged in “us and them” thinking, or in more extreme cases “us, them, and evil other” thinking. For the Nazis, Germans were “us,” Slavs were “them,” and Jews were “evil other.” Other civilizations–especially in polarized times–will assign different groups to “us,” “them,” and “evil other.” We do not normally describe a civilization or culture as “evil” for having embraced us versus them thinking.
Oh yes we do - if that “us and them” leads to “them” being abused. I then typed a load of examples of such evil, but deleted them. I don’t think I need them for my response to be absolute.
That’s it Kurt. Bye for now!
-
@Private:
Instead of arguing with Kurt about guilt for the holocaust I am now defending Kurt and his right to free speech. Thanks for the distraction Narvik! :-(
Bottom line is that Germany started two world wars, for no rational reason other than just for fun. No German was starving in 1914, yet der Kaizer started a world war because he wanted to rule and suppress the whole world. This even happened twice. No German was starving in 1939 neither, yet der Fuhrer (new name same wrapping) started a world war for the second time, just because he wanted to rule and suppress the whole world. He even wrote a book about it so there would be no doubt. And now your new BFF the David Irving wannabe blame the Allies for defending themselves ? What are you smoking ?
-
@Private:
Oh yes we do - if that “us and them” leads to “them” being abused. I then typed a load of examples of such evil, but deleted them. I don’t think I need them for my response to be absolute.
It is natural human behavior to use us and them thinking. This is all about survival for your group or community. But usually most of us live and let live. Only German Nationalism started two world wars to kill and suppress the others.
-
Private Panic wrote,
Sorry for the selective quotes, but I believe this means that we have agreed that the Nazis were guilty of genocide.
On the surface, that sentence sounds entirely too much like an endorsement of the Allied anti-Nazi propaganda effort. Were the Nazis guilty of unfairly singling out Jews? Yes, absolutely. When famine conditions were imposed by the murderous Allied food blockade, did the Nazis unfairly allocate a disproportionate share of famine deaths to the Jews? Again the answer is yes. But a word like “genocide” normally implies that a government committed an avoidable act of mass murder. Granted, the civilian deaths which occurred in WWII Germany were avoidable. They could easily have been avoided by the Allies, had they chosen not to use famine as a weapon against the people living in German-occupied Europe.
However, it’s possible your use of the word “genocide” is more technically correct than mine. The word was first coined in 1944 by a Polish-born man named Lemkin. Lemkin wrote:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
Under that definition, an immigration policy could be described as “genocide,” as long as it resulted in the eventual elimination of the host country’s main ethnic or racial groups. Everyday colloquial usage of the term is typically far narrower than that. To describe the Nazis as guilty of “genocide” risks endorsing the Allied big lie that the Nazis could have fed everyone within their own borders; and only chose not to due to racial hate.
Oh yes we do - if that “us and them” leads to “them” being abused.
During WWI, and again in WWII, the U.S. embraced us-versus-them thinking with respect to the Germans. Yet few would describe American society during those times as “evil.” (Although the actions of our political leaders were evil, especially during WWII.) During the 1860s, both the North and the South embraced us-versus-them thinking during the Civil War. If anyone who embraces us-versus-them thinking is evil, both the North and the South were evil. During the 1960s, hippies embraced us-versus-them thinking WRT the Establishment; and the Establishment embraced such thinking WRT the hippies. Maybe the world is filled with evil people. Or, maybe us-versus-them thinking is a natural part of the human psyche; and (potentially) a hardwired survival instinct.
As for whether people end up getting abused: if there are famine conditions, of course “us” will get fed before “them.” That’s inevitable. With the possible exception of WWI Germany, I can’t think of any group which engaged in us-versus-them thinking which didn’t feed us before them under famine conditions.
-
Most of what humans call morality is about transcending our instincts.
-
I am not coming back in Kurt, even though I am disappointed by your last post.
-
Narvik wrote,
Bottom line is that Germany started two world wars, for no rational reason other than just for fun.
You seem like a good guy. I assume you’re telling the truth to the best of your ability. However, the above represents Allied propaganda; and is not connected to reality. I say that as someone who myself passionately repeated Allied lies–at least until I learned better.
WWI began as a conflict between Austria and Serbia. A member of Austrian nobility had been assassinated. Serbia was subjected to Austrian anger over that assassination, due in large part to its past track record of harboring anti-Austrian terrorists. Serbia refused some of the demands Austria made upon it. Russia supported Serbia’s position, with France quietly and behind the scenes egging Russia on. Note that all this happened before Germany took a position on these matters.
der Kaizer started a world war because he wanted to rule and suppress the whole world
The above statement is Allied propaganda, with no basis in reality. This particular Allied claim does not merit acknowledgement, let alone a detailed rebuttal. I once believed such things myself. It was only after doing a lot of research that I realized how many Allied lies I’d swallowed; or how little actual interest the Allied leaders had in any sort of morality. (Despite their frequent, loud protestations to the contrary.)
No German was starving in 1939 neither, yet der Fuhrer (new name same wrapping) started a
world war for the second time, just because he wanted to rule and suppress the whole world.During the Weimar Republic, most Germans experienced what one historian referred to as “prolonged and insatiable hunger” due to the brutal economic conditions imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. It was only by breaking free of that sadistic treaty that Hitler was able to spare the German people from additional hunger.
He even wrote a book about it so there would be no doubt.
I’ve read that book–twice–and found nothing in it to justify either the Allied big lie that Hitler wanted to rule the world, or the Allied big lie that Hitler had formulated plans to kill the Jews even before he took office. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote about his desire to conquer the Soviet Union–or at least the portion of the Soviet Union west of the Urals. That conquest would protect Germany and Europe from the evil of communism, and would give Germany the same position of strength with respect to Europe that the United States had relative to North America. As Hitler pointed out, no one had ever succeeded in imposing a Versailles Treaty on the United States. He wanted to make sure no one could ever again do so with respect to Germany.
One of Hitler’s reasons for going to war was described in John Toland’s book Adolf Hitler. Toland’s book was favorably reviewed by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, Library Journal, and a number of other major media publications.
[A.I.] Berndt [a German government official] thought the reported number of German nationals killed by Poles too small and simply added a nought. At first Hitler refused to believe such a figure but, when Berndt replied that it may have been somewhat exaggerated but something monstrous must have happened to give rise to such stories, Hitler shouted ‘They’ll pay for this! Now no one will stop me from teaching these fellows a lesson they’ll never forget! I will not have my Germans butchered like cattle!’ At this point the Fuhrer went to the phone and, in Berndt’s presence, ordered Keitel to issue ‘Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War.’ [pp. 566 - 567].
Also from Toland’s book:
Lipski never asked to see Hitler’s sixteen-point proposal . . . He was following his orders ‘not to enter into any concrete negotiations.’ The Poles were apparently so confident they could whip the Germans (with help from their allies) that they were not interested in discussing Hitler’s offer. [p. 567]
In 1939, France had promised Poland that, if Germany attacked, France would launch a major offensive within 15 days of mobilization. That claim was an outright lie.
In his post-war diaries general Edmund Ironside, the chief of Imperial General Staff commented on French promises “The French had lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it”.[24] The French initiated full mobilization and began the limited Saar Offensive on 7 September but halted short of the German defensive lines and then withdrew to their own defences around 13 September. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed by dispatch marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The Polish military envoy to France, general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki, upon receiving the text of the message sent by Gamelin, alerted marshal Śmigły: “I received the message by general Gamelin. Please don’t believe a single word in the dispatch”.[23] The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.
Back when the Polish were ignoring German peace proposals and killing Germans–albeit only one tenth as many Germans as Berndt had reported to Hitler–they’d expected France to honor its promise to launch a general offensive against Germany within 15 days of mobilization. Combined, France and Poland had at least as many infantry, tanks, and artillery as Germany. A general French offensive would have forced Germany to allocate the bulk of its military assets to its Western front; thereby turning a short war into a long war. In a long war, the Western democracies’ industrial advantages over Germany would have made Allied victory nearly inevitable; and Poland would have been on the victors’ side of the peace table.
Polish leaders wanted to expand westward.
[In 1941], an office of the Polish Government in Exile wrote to warn Władysław Sikorski that if the [Atlantic] Charter was implemented with regards to national self-determination, it would make the desired Polish annexation of Danzig, East Prussia and parts of German Silesia impossible, which led the Poles to approach Britain asking for a flexible interpretation of the Charter.[25]
-
Now you claim that Poland started WW II ?
-
Narvik wrote:
Now you claim that Poland started WW II ?
Poland was an expansionistic military dictatorship. Prior to the outbreak of WWII, it had already engaged in several territorial annexations. (Including helping itself to a slice of Czechoslovakia in 1938.) Polish leaders wanted to help themselves to some German territory as well: notably East Prussia and part of Silesia. Their desire to do that was an important contributing factor in the start of the war.
But I do not feel that Poland’s raw desire for expansionism was the primary factor in the outbreak of hostilities. The primary factor was the pro-Soviet foreign policies consistently embraced by every major democracy prior to 1948. During the 1930s, it was widely believed that there would be war between Germany on the one hand, and the U.S.S.R. and the Western democracies on the other. Western democratic leaders–especially Daladier and FDR–were very eager to see exactly this kind of war.
Daladier wanted war between France and Germany. However, he did not want to go it alone. He wanted at least one major ally: Britain, or the United States, or the Soviet Union. He wasn’t all that picky which. FDR wanted to go to war against Germany as well. But at least initially, he was unable to persuade Congress or the American people that war was necessary. Making the case for war was difficult, given that the American people realized we’d gone into WWI based on a pack of Allied lies. For example, Germany was not guilty of killing millions of Belgians during WWI, despite Allied claims to the contrary.
If during the '30s Western democratic leaders were willing to carve up Germany with the Soviet Union, why didn’t Stalin want to go along with those plans? The answer is that Stalin wanted to conquer both Germany and the Western European democracies. A war in which everyone ganged up on Germany would (from Stalin’s perspective) have been too easy for the Western democracies, and would have left them in too strong a position. Therefore Stalin declined Western democratic invitations to carve up Germany, while using communist influence to promote “anti-fascism” and warmongering in Western democracies.
After the fall of France, Stalin’s plan was to invade Germany. By destroying the German Army only, Stalin would have taken control not just of Germany itself, but of France as well. He would have sold the Soviet invasion of France as a “liberation” from hostile German occupation. However, Germany invaded the Soviet Union at least a month before Stalin’s preparations to invade Germany were complete. The German attack took Stalin completely by surprise. Germany achieved a 10:1 exchange ratio during Operation Barbarossa. (As opposed to the 3:1 exchange ratio it normally achieved against Soviet forces.)
Even though Stalin declined to participate in a preemptive Allied effort to carve up Germany, Soviet and Western democratic influence in Eastern Europe was such that, during the ‘30s, most Eastern European nations had adopted anti-German foreign policies. Both Poland and other Eastern European nations wanted to be on what they felt would be the winning side in the impending conflict between Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Soviets’ allies.
The stated long-term goal of Soviet foreign policy was world conquest. Prior to 1948, the major Western democracies were useless in preventing Soviet expansion. In 1919 - '21, for example, no major Western democracy came to Poland’s aid when the Soviets went to war to annex it. Only the efforts of the Polish military (and the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war against the czarists) prevented Poland from becoming the newest Soviet socialist republic. The Soviets had achieved far greater penetration of Western democratic political processes (and influence over Western democracies) during the '30s and early '40s than had been the case during the Polish-Soviet War. The Western democracies were less likely to intervene against Soviet expansion during the '30s or early '40s than they’d been back in 1920, when they did nothing at all to prevent the U.S.S.R. from annexing Poland.
All of which reinforced Hitler’s conviction that peace and security for Germany could only be achieved by conquering the Soviet Union itself. Such a conquest would be difficult, given the fact that Stalin and the Western democracies had successfully persuaded most Eastern European nations to adopt anti-German foreign policies. Hitler used a carrot and stick policy to convert those Eastern European nations into German allies. Czechoslovakia had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. It was therefore annexed in 1938–a none-too-subtle message to any other Eastern European nation which might think of allying with Stalin against Hitler. Poland abruptly adopted an anti-German foreign policy in 1939 (mostly in response to false French promises about a general offensive against Germany).
In 1941, Italy invaded Greece. The Greeks fought off the Italian invasion. But they were careful not to provoke Germany. They didn’t attempt to conquer much Italian land, and they did not invite Britain to reinforce Greek positions. Germany therefore remained neutral in that conflict. However, the Greek government which demonstrated this restraint was voted out of office by a different, more aggressive Greek government. The replacement Greek government invited the British in; and took a more aggressive approach about conquering Italian territory. Germany therefore invaded Greece (and destroyed the pro-Soviet government which had arisen in Yugoslavia) as the final touches on its pre-Barbarossa efforts. With the fall of Greece and Yugoslavia, all of the nations between Germany and the Soviet Union were either allied with Germany or neutral in Germany’s favor. By that point, it was recognized that any Eastern European nation which engaged in bad (i.e., pro-Soviet) behavior would be very quickly punished by Germany. Ridding Eastern Europe of Soviet influence was an obvious prelude to the invasion of the Soviet Union itself.
-
And world war 1 was started because they could a lot of rivalries between countries that just needed a reason to go to war.
It started over a assasination and a lot of alliances just followed eachother untill everybody was at war, ofcourse some where just opportunists that saw some gain ( like france gaining ground they lost 100 years ago ).Historians have taken different stances on the causal blame for WWI. Three factors that weighs heavily with those that think G shoulders more responsibility than anyone else, ShadowHawk, are:
- the so called “blank cheque” that G gave Austria
- that G needed war in 1914 as R rearmament and railway investments would erode its advantage by 1915
- that G pounced on R’s mobilisation order against Austria as a casus belli, despite knowing that R needed weeks longer than anyone else to mobilise.
I’d be interested to know what your view is on these points ShadowHawk?
-
Privat Panic, you made a comeback ?
-
So you could say that France and to a little extend the UK and US started WW2 by blaming germany for starting a war it did not really start…
Actually, the Versailles Treaty did not place sole blame on Germany for starting the war. It just said that Germany and her allies were responsible for the war damages in France and Belgium (and elsewhere maybe) and thus gave a legal basis for demanding reparations.
-
Actually, the Versailles Treaty did not place sole blame on Germany for starting the war. It just said that Germany and her allies were responsible for the war damages in France and Belgium (and elsewhere maybe) and thus gave a legal basis for demanding reparations.
I’m not disagreeing. But the Versailles Treaty was part of a larger package of measures which, collectively, crippled Germany both economically and militarily.
-
The reparations payments demanded by Versailles were staggering. Those alone had the potential to cripple the German economy.
-
During the '20s, Britain and France closed their empires to German imports. That made it much more difficult for Germany to obtain the foreign currency needed to meet its obligations.
-
The Versailles Treaty prohibited Germany from having more than a token military, which meant that other than the Western democracies, there would be no counterweight to Soviet expansionism in Europe. The Western democracies had no interest in being that counterweight–at least not prior to 1948.
-
Important parts of Germany were placed under hostile foreign occupation. France was given control of the Rhineland and the Saar, Czechoslovakia control of the Sudetenland, and Poland control of West Prussia. This also made economic recovery more difficult.
-
For whatever reason, the government of the Weimar Republic was weak. I’m not sure how much of that (if any) represented deliberate intent by the Allies, and how much was due to random chance. But for whatever reason, that government was unable to make the most of Germany’s (admittedly) meager position.
Germany is a net food importer and a net raw materials importer. In order to pay for all that food and all those raw materials, it must be a net exporter of manufactured goods. This means that it’s very vulnerable to other countries simply closing themselves to German exports; as the British and French empires did in the '20s, and as the U.S. did as part of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1929. When the economic pressure of that is added to the economic pressure the Allies exerted with their demands for massive reparations payments, the result was disastrous. (Especially when coupled with the loss of the heart of German industry–the Rhineland–to hostile French occupation.) It was this combination of factors which made the Weimar Republic unable to feed its own people.
In order to postpone its economic problems, the Weimar Republic borrowed large sums of money–especially from the United States. Over the short-term, that borrowing provided it desperately needed infusions of capital. But the underlying economy did not improve during the '20s. Which meant that later on, the Germans were dealing with the above-described economic problems, plus massive interest payments to nations such as the United States. Eventually, Britain and France were able to talk the United States into forgiving their war debts. In exchange for which, they would seek no further reparations payments from Germany. Thus, one of Germany’s most important economic problems was solved before Hitler came to power. However, its remaining economic problems (massive debt payments, markets closed to German exports, an industrial heartland under hostile French occupation) were severe enough to produce the economically disastrous conditions and widespread hunger needed to bring Hitler to power.
-
-
-
@Private:
- the so called “blank cheque” that G gave Austria
- that G needed war in 1914 as R rearmament and railway investments would erode its advantage by 1915
- that G pounced on R’s mobilisation order against Austria as a casus belli, despite knowing that R needed weeks longer than anyone else to mobilise.
I’d be interested to know what your view is on these points ShadowHawk?
Your second point is another way of saying that Russia was aggressively militarizing. Which is true; and the same could also be said of France. As for your third point: Russia mobilized before any of the Central Powers; with the mobilization directed against Austria.
I agree that the blank check Germany gave to Austria was a contributing factor. The same could be said of the blank check France gave to Russia. Serbian support for terrorism was also an important factor; especially given the fact that the targets of terrorist attacks were sometimes members of the Austrian nobility.
But the most important factor in the start of WWI may well have been France. After its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, France began assembling an anti-German alliance. Russia was persuaded to join this alliance, despite the czar having given his word that he would not do so. Britain joined the alliance as well; abandoning its traditional foreign policy of glorious neutrality. The United States would later (unfortunately) join the alliance in 1917.
Diplomatic winds shift, and diplomatic circumstances are subject to change. Having assembled an anti-German alliance, it was in France’s interest to see that alliance used to defeat Germany. If in 1914 Europe had experienced a decade or two of peace, France’s anti-German alliance might have drifted apart. Britain might have gone back to being gloriously neutral, and Russia might have reconciled with Germany. It was therefore in France’s interest to go to war before this happened. That explains the French decision to give a blank check to Russia, and its decision to encourage Russia to support a terrorist state such as Serbia.
-
Russia was growing its military and transport capabilities (is that the same thing as militarising?) although whether it was aggressive or defensive (as it started from a point of disadvantage) is the debate we would no doubt have.
France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a fear of Germany. If you find that fear understandable then some of those actions become more so.
My memory is that the first declaration of war was by Austria against Serbia. This was despite Serbia having given in to virtually all of Austria’s demands. So the German blank cheque was more immediate to the commencement of hostilities, albeit that the French blank cheque was also contributory.
The fact that Russia attempted the distinction that its mobilisation was only against Austria would only have worked if Germany had not wanted war in 1914 (debatable) and so put their faith in Russian assertions (difficult).
-
Private Panic wrote:
Russia was growing its military and transport capabilities (is that the same thing as militarising?)
Growing one’s military capabilities is normally seen as the same thing as militarizing.
although whether it was aggressive or defensive (as it started from a point of disadvantage) is the debate we would no doubt have.
I do not profess to know whether Russia’s motives in militarizing were aggressive or defensive. It’s possible that, at least in some instances, there was not a major distinction between the two. For example, a national leader might think, “If we are weak, we will get conquered. So we must become strong to avoid that.” So that sounds nice and defensive and everything. Except that same leader might think, “Once we become strong, we will then have the chance to conquer those who are weak.” The distinction between defensive and offensive thinking isn’t always warranted. Also, there is the possibility that some leaders of major European nations felt war to be inevitable.
France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a fear of Germany.
You are correct, but have not gone far enough. It would be more accurate to say that France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a centuries-old anti-Germanism. A deep-seated, fixed belief that anything bad for Germany must be good for France. That whatever relations between Germany and France might be over the short term, eventually things would deteriorate and come to blows. (Which was why, from the French perspective, a weak Germany was so important.) A French policy of maintaining a weak Germany had begun hundreds of years earlier, when France divided Germany into 300 small pieces. (The Treaty of Westphalia.) Between the Treaty of Westphalia and 1940, France’s policy was consistently to seek a weak and divided Germany. That philosophy was at the heart of the Versailles Treaty. It is also why Germany was eventually united by Prussia. Prussia is about as far away from France as you can be and still be in Germany–and was thus less vulnerable to French military influence than western Germany.
This was despite Serbia having given in to virtually all of Austria’s demands.
Serbia accepted some demands and rejected others. In that particular instance, I think Serbia’s leaders were being more reasonable than Austria’s leaders. Serbia’s past track record of harboring anti-Austrian terrorists worked against it. The people making decisions about Austria’s foreign policy (the Austrian nobility) were the same people who’d just been targeted in the recent assassination. Typically, if you go after people’s families, they become less than reasonable in their response.
So the German blank cheque was more immediate to the commencement of hostilities
That is not necessarily the case. Serbia was emboldened by the Russian guarantee; and Russia was emboldened by the French guarantee. Austria was emboldened by the German guarantee. I could be mistaken, but I think that if any of those guarantees had not been given, hostilities would not have commenced.
The fact that Russia attempted the distinction that its mobilisation was only against
Austria would only have worked if Germany had not wanted war in 1914 (debatable)
and so put their faith in Russian assertions (difficult).A certain amount of German thinking was driven by the desire to be a good ally to Austria. German leadership didn’t want to leave Austria to its fate, if Russia was mobilizing against it. Both Germany and Austria were aristocracies; and they had a good relationship with each other.
-
Could you guys start a new thread?
Suggested Topics
