Thoughts on the History of WWI

[ev]

I am not an authority on this subject, but I thought I share with you some history stuff I read... and put some thoughts on the table regarding possible tweaking on this game.

When WWI started, Germany and Austria had a mutual defend pact. Under this treaty, each party was bound to defend each other against an agressor. Likewise, France and Russia had a mutual defense pact, binding each other to a common defense.

Apparently, Russia also had a treaty, or at least had declared publicly, it would intervene in the defense of Serbia if Serbia was attacked.

England had similar treatises. However, England had made it clear it would only enter the war if the other person was the aggrieved party. If, say France attacked Germany, England would not come in to help France.

But England had yet another treaty, which bound England to defend Belgium if Belgium was invaded by either Germany or France, or anyone else.

So, in 1914, a Serbian nationalist killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, son of the Emperor of Austria. The Austrian government made some very tough demands on the Serbian government. The Serbian government could or would not meet all the demands, and Austria declared war.

Russia declared war on Austria to defend Serbia. Germany declared war on Russia to defend Austria. And, France declared war on Germany to defend Russia. England did not declare war in this initial stage. Germany had neither attacked nor declared war against France. So England was not bound to defend France by the terms of their treaty.

But then, and this is the big BUT ...then Germany attacked Belgium. And England had a defense treaty with Belgium. This trigerred England's entry into the war.

So, back to Hubert's great game. The game starts before Germany invades Belgium. Belgium is still neutral, but England is already at war. This is a-historical... And it closes the posibility of players exploring a big if: What if Germany had not invaded Belgium. What if Germany had left a defensive force in Alcase-Loraine, and transfered all their troops to the eastern front.

And, the even bigger if: If Germany had not invaded Belgium, what would have triggered England's entry into the war? My guess is that, any attack into French territory, or any attack against any neutral country (Holland, Denmark, etc.) would have trigerred England's entry into the war. Also, anything that threatened the balance of power in a substantial manner: Italy or Turkey siding with the Central Powers, Germany occupying a substantial number of Russian cities, and the like.

Any thoughts?

[patrat618]

But England had yet another treaty, which bound England to defend Belgium if Belgium was invaded by either Germany or France, or anyone else.

And, the even bigger if: If Germany had not invaded Belgium, what would have triggered England's entry into the war? My guess is that, any attack into French territory, or any attack against any neutral country (Holland, Denmark, etc.) would have trigerred England's entry into the war. Also, anything that threatened the balance of power in a substantial manner: Italy or Turkey siding with the Central Powers, Germany occupying a substantial number of Russian cities, and the like.

Any thoughts?

iirc england was not obliged to defend belgium. the treaty was a pledge by france, germany and england not to invade belgium.

england would of entered the war if france was in danger. england was not going to allow germany to crush france as that would place england in danger. frankly that was the real reason for their entering the war. belgium was just a convient excuse.

england didnt really need an excuse anyway. they had been going to war to preserve the balance of power in europe for the last couple of hundred years. 1914 wasn't any differant.

that being said, i would like to have the option of using the molkte eastern plan and go for russia 1st. belgium would intially be uninvaded and englands entry could be triggered by the level of cp success. in other words, if the cp does to good against the entante, then england intervenes to preserve the balance of power.

[ev]

england didnt really need an excuse anyway.

Agreed.

they had been going to war to preserve the balance of power in europe for the last couple of hundred years. 1914 wasn't any differant.

Exactly my point. If the Germans stayed put on their side of the frontier, and did not attack either Belgium or France, and, if the Germans did not attack Denmark or any other country, and, if the Germans did not make too much progress in the eastern front... i.e. did not threaten to change the balance of power, then the Brits would have stayed in the sidelines.

I guess, what I am trying to say is that England's entry into the war should be conditional to events, not a predetermined event. England should be very close to entering the war, so close it could happen any moment, but, not a sure thing...

[harry33]

gibberish,As the treaty was signed Germany did not exist, at all!

[Ludi1867]

This thread started with a question that is incorrect, so far as I can tell, and has veered far off course already. In version 1.02 of the game the UK in the first campaign scenario does NOT start out at war. The UK is at 98%, and will immediately join the Entente if Belgium is invaded. However, if Belgium is not invaded then the UK may or may not immediately join the Entente – although if it does not join immediately it is clear that the UK will join very, very soon.

So, the first point made by Ev, that “England is already at war”, is certainly not the case for the first campaign scenario.

Now the whole issue of whether 98% is a reasonable assessment of the UK position is certainly open to prolonged debate. There were many cross currents in British politics at the end of July and early August 1914, and it is not at all clear that the UK would have immediately gone to war with Germany if Belgium had not been invaded. Even with the invasion of Belgium two Cabinet ministers in the UK resigned rather than vote in favour of war. The cynical may scoff, but Cabinet resignations on matters of principle are actually rather uncommon, and do indicate that there was significant resistance to the UK entering the war.

In the longer term, the UK had never NOT gone to war to support a balance of power (or to oppose a potential hegemon) in Europe for several centuries, so it seems quite reasonable that a UK declaration of war would follow upon a German advance into western Europe, even one that avoided Belgium. How immediate the UK declaration of war would have been can be argued endlessly, but it would likely have come fairly quickly.

The fact that Germany invaded France in response to events in the Balkans is arguably not rational at all, and has much more to do with German assessments before the war than anything else. The most rational response to a threat in the east from Russia might well have been an advance into Russia, and this is indeed one of the more practical ways to do well as the Central Powers in this game. However, the real Germany (which was arguably more of a Prussian dominated Empire than a nation state as the term is understood today) was so concerned about a two front war – and Russia and France being Allies presented this threat to Germany as a real and pressing factor – that the General Staff developed a single solution to a major war: a massive assault on France. The activation of this solution, even without an invasion of Belgium, would likely have brought the UK into the war (which is essentially Ev's comment). Yet, the entire war is impossible to contemplate without a German invasion of the west in some form – the fact that the game actually allows such a course of action by players is arguably more controversial than the fact that the UK starts at 98% preparation for war. It is also a rather pointless 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' type of argument – game designers have to make SOME assumptions when starting out, or there is never going to be a game at all. Overall the underlying assumptions in this game seem reasonable enough.

As for the last point – there was no Germany when the treaty with Belgium was signed in 1834 - this is a classic example of a perfectly true but useless piece of history. The German Empire that fought in the Great War was established in 1871, clearly well after 1834, and therefore not in existence when the original treaty was signed. However, the new German Reich was essentially dominated by Prussia, which had most definitely been in existence in 1834, and therefore the 'gibberish' point made by Harry33 is rather, well, pointless.

[ev]

In version 1.02 of the game the UK in the first campaign scenario does NOT start out at war. The UK is at 98%, and will immediately join the Entente if Belgium is invaded. However, if Belgium is not invaded then the UK may or may not immediately join the Entente – although if it does not join immediately it is clear that the UK will join very, very soon.

So, the first point made by Ev, that “England is already at war”, is certainly not the case for the first campaign scenario.

I've only played as CP. I missinterpreted the game manual. The game manual says:

"The UK is poised to enter the war, both Italy and the USA are neutral but they will almost certainly join the Entente..."

I understood this to mean UK was not neutral, and, must inevitably enter the war... in the few games I started, England always entered the war. I guess that was because I always attacked Belgium. And, of course, I always attacked Belgium because I thought the UK entry into the war was inevitable since it was "poised to enter the war."

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the issue. In my next game, I will try not invading Belgium, and going all out against Russia.

[harry33]

He wrote "Germans" ....

It is not possible to separate between Germans in the German Empire/Reich and Austria.

The Austrians founded/thought about a German-Austria in 1918. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Austria

[Thomas Hoellering]

Timetables - the entire European continent, including Russia, all had timetables. Once you start mobilization, its like hitting the auto-boot button that starts the whole load up routine etc. You cant stop it. Germany (Von Schliefen) had the entire - read again - entire schedule all worked out, down to the minute. The trains were run by the military. Each unit was to be at a precise point in time. All trains were scheduled, feeding, horses, artillery, really everything. And so did the English, the French, and the Russians also have their time-tables. It was thought (correctly) that it would take Russia 30 days to fully mobilize. Until then, they could do nothing. It was thought - from the experience of the war of 1870-71 that France could be knocked out by then (as they did at that time) and then send their forces to the east..with days to spare. But Moltke (the older and the younger) ended up fudging with the Schliefen Plan, taking away more and more units to defend and attack in the south. It did not help that the Arch Prinz had a hand in this also...what they did not expect, was for Belgium to resist as it did. That normal citizens would take up arms and shoot soldiers. That was a huge no-no back then, and completely new to warfare. So the Germans did the Decimate thing like the Romans, and killed every 10th male in just about every town and city they entered. It was a pretty brutal thing there - but when you muddle against the military as a civilian, your pretty much out of luck. Anyway...what killed the whole thing was a German messenger who got killed while carrying secret documents about the movement of the german armies, which allowed Mr. Foch to place his forces where they mattered. He had one shot, and the rest if the Miracle at the you know where...and an Active Neutral US definately did not help matters either. Also, the Italians had a secret treaty with Germany...just decided that things would go better when things did not work out in 1914, and decided it wanted to be on the winning side, like so many other nations. The Kaiser once mentioned that he felt like Germany was shackled to a corpse...meaning Austria Hungary. Remember, Prussia and Austria/Hungary have had bad blood for centuries...also part of the whole mess.

TH

[Hubert Cater]

Hi ev,

I just wanted to pop in quickly to clarify a game mechanic... once a country is over 90% mobilization it will inevitably join the war so by being set at 98% the UK will join the Entente regardless of what Germany does in the first few turns.

Hubert

[patrat618]

Yet, the entire war is impossible to contemplate without a German invasion of the west in some form –

.

found this on the web.

"The alternative to the Schlieffen Plan would most likely be Moltke the Elder’s and Waldersee’s Plans. They had anticipated a two-front war and had both concluded that success against France was not possible given France’s modern defences along their common border. They therefore planned that the German Army should fight defensively in the west, using the Rhine as a barrier against a French offensive, and deploy the bulk of the German army against Russia. The plan was to gain a defensible line inside the Russian frontier. Moltke’s plan did not envisage a march on Moscow or Saint Petersburg."

who knows how workable this would of been. but it seems it was at least comtemplated at one point.

[patrat618]

...what they did not expect, was for Belgium to resist as it did. That normal citizens would take up arms and shoot soldiers. That was a huge no-no back then, and completely new to warfare. TH

it wasn't really new. in 1870 the prussians had trouble with Francs-tireurs. which is what the partisans who fought them were called.

before that napoleon had trouble in spain with the guerillas. which is where and when that term orginated.

[Minty]

Thomas H's comments are the most accurate summary so far on this otherwise rather cliched thread. The "causes" of the WWI are rich, varied and still debated today by historians. What is certainly true is the threat of being "out mobilised" by the enemy was constantly feared on both sides. July 1914 - in between the spark of the assasination and the declaration of war in August - has many of the most interesting "what ifs?" in C20th history. Arguably the only man who could have put the brakes on in July that summer is the Czar,and once he ordered mobilisation (even partial) the great fear of germany - a 2 front war and the russian horde- left them with no choice but to mobilise. In more modern terms, or at least cold war terms the alliances can be seen as the "nuclear detterent" and mobillisation as lauching the missiles - except you have a 30 day warning not a 4 minute one. Alas though there was no presidential hotline and no way for either side to back down.

There are many exceptional books on the start , causes and history of the war. One of the most readable by far and certainly one of the most colourful ( in part because it was written in between the wars and by an army officer who fought in it) - is Liddell Hart's history of the great war. It also has some great tips for playing SC if you read it's anti clausewitz school of strategy section

A more modern and detailed analysis of some of the causes - especially the tensions that brought Britain into the war -is Dreadnought by Robert Massie.

One further comment I must make though is on the post - "england didnt really need an excuse anyway. they had been going to war to preserve the balance of power in europe for the last couple of hundred years. 1914 wasn't any differant." That is incorrect. Britain cared little for the balance of power in Europe, only that which would effect it's global and predominantly martime empire. The single largest change in the balance in power in European history since the fall of the Holy roman empire has been the creation of the German state. Britain did get involved when Germany invaded Denmark in 1863 or during the bloody 10 month Franco prussian war of 1870-1871. Britain did not go to war then and if it hadn't in 1914 one can't help but wonder if the Franco German Russian war of 1914-1915 would now be as forgotten as it's predecessor 40 years earlier.

[ev]

Timetables - the entire European continent, including Russia, all had timetables. Once you start mobilization, its like hitting the auto-boot button that starts the whole load up routine etc. You cant stop it.

They also had one more thing: poor leadership.

The attack on Belgium could be stopped. Mobilization could take plce without actually ttackin Belgium. Of course, that meant sacrificing the benefit of surprise. It also meant that the plan to outflank the French would not work. But, supposedly Germany entered the war to defend Austria. There is, in fact, anecdotal evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with England. And Germany had obtained the territories it wanted from France after the Franco Prussian war. Germany had no need, nor justification to be the aggressor in the western front.

Germany could have acted could have acted in a manner consistant with the reason that brought her into the war: To defend its ally from Russian aggression. Gemany failure to do so would haunt them back during the armistice negotitions. More important, an entire generation of German soldiers bled to death fightin for what? If Gvermany would have succided in reaching Paris, what were they expecting the French to give them?

In the east, Germany could easily grab huge sections of Poland and Lithuania. And, the Russians did not considered this Russian soil. So, there was much more room in the east for a political settlement.

And, by staying defensive in the west, Germany defused any reasoms for the Brits, or the US to enter the war. And, even if they entered the war, it made it politically feasable to negotiate a peace, since Germany could then claim: we only entered the war to defend our ally; we never attacked France; France was the aggressor.