Imperial Germany - Pre 1914

Shutuplaura

Recently I've been reading a bit about how the First World War was necessary to prevent a totlitarian state taking over Europe. Now, besides the fact that Germany probably didn't intend to occupy the whole of Europe, I'd always thought that Imperial Germany was a democracy, with a representative parliment and all that and the Kaiser sitting at the top with only limited power. Isn't this the case?

ejmaztec

I didn't think that WW1 was at all necessary, for any reason. Was this just some idea that was dreamt up after the event to try and justify the waste of life? I know that in the late 18th/early 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian Empire built fortifications on it's Northern borders in case the Prussians made a play for their territory, but I assumed that because the Germans backed the Austrians re WW1, they had overcome their mutual distrust.

Capt'n Midnight

OP pretty much
with the exception of Russia most of the major countries had a monarch as head of state with real power in the hands of Parliament

Interesting to note is how anyone can think that Germany in both WWI and WWII was to take over the world with the same size navy as the Royal Navy.

Look at the US today. Apart from Canada* and Mexico** any invasion would have to come by sea. And yet some people in the US are worried about invasion by the UN. Even the Japanese didn't think about it knowing that there would be an armed civilian behind every rock and tree. If you exclude the UK , then the USA spends more on military than all the other countries put together. Their navy measured in numbers of major surface combatants is bigger than the next 17 put together. There are a lot of paranoid people over there and so there is need for a bogey man.

The US is a democracy. Regan illegally invaded Grenada without the approval of congress.

*the last time they invaded the US, Canada kicked butt, burning down the White House.
** Technically Mexico wouldn't be invading as most of the land was theirs .

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Recently I've been reading a bit about how the First World War was necessary to prevent a totlitarian state taking over Europe. Now, besides the fact that Germany probably didn't intend to occupy the whole of Europe, I'd always thought that Imperial Germany was a democracy, with a representative parliment and all that and the Kaiser sitting at the top with only limited power. Isn't this the case?

Unfortuanetly, I'd say Europe was ruled by totlitarian states across Europe. As SnickersMan asked my good friend Fred and the other brits who post on the forum, if WW 1 was about the freedom of small nations, why was the british, French and Italian empire's larger after WW1 ?

PDN

Wow! It didn't take long for this thread to get round to Brit-bashing, did it?

I think WWI was a massive exercise in futility and slaughter.

Fratton Fred

PDN wrote: »

Wow! It didn't take long for this thread to get round to Brit-bashing, did it?

I think WWI was a massive exercise in futility and slaughter.

Hindsight very clearly shows that, but don't forget that there was a cold war going on for a number of years, I forget who said it, but around the turn of the century, one American described Europe as a tinder box ready to go off.

The German navy was much smaller than the RN and when they started buildning battleships, Britain followed suit and so started a huge arms race. ironically, when the two great navys finally fought each other, both sides were too worried about their precious battle ships to get really involved, so apart from Jutland, there was no real naval contact.

I'm not sure when Snickersman asked me about the question Mcarmalite claims, but it was never about the freedom of small nations, it was a cold war that boiled over. Britain had more colonies at the end because the allies took all the colonies off Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. I thought that was pretty obvious.

What you effectively had before WWI was the British, French, Italian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires all looking at each other with suspicion and tension steadily building, until one small event sparks it all off.

McArmalite

PDN wrote: »

Wow! It didn't take long for this thread to get round to Brit-bashing, did it?

I think WWI was a massive exercise in futility and slaughter.

Agreed PDN

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure when Snickersman asked me about the question Mcarmalite claims, but it was never about the freedom of small nations, it was a cold war that boiled over. Britain had more colonies at the end because the allies took all the colonies off Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the so called war for the freedom of small nations. I thought that was pretty obvious. Also, Italy fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary in WW1.

I remember hearing at a history discussion, I think it was James Connolly, noticed when he got a train from Belfast all the recruitment posters had "Fight for King and Country" and images of the glorious empire etc plastered over them. Then as the train moved further south onto Newry, Dundalk etc the theme of the posters changed to images of refugees fleeing beast like German soldiers and captioned - "Save Catholic Belgium".

PDN

McArmalite wrote: »

I remember hearing at a history discussion, I think it was James Connolly, noticed when he got a train from Belfast all the recruitment posters had "Fight for King and Country" and images of the glorious empire etc plastered over them. Then as the train moved further south onto Newry, Dundalk etc the theme of the posters changed to images of refugees fleeing beast like German soldiers and captioned - "Save Catholic Belgium".

Tenuous connection here - but your reference to Connolly and trains reminded me of this. Every time I get off a train at Connolly station (I drive to Balbriggan and ride into Dublin because I'm too tight to pay the extra fare from Drogheda) one of the platforms has 2 plaques on the wall either side of a doorway. One is a memorial to the employees of the railway company who died fighting in the British Army in WWI. The other is a copy of the 1916 Proclamation of Independence. Schizophrenic nation, aren't we?

Shutuplaura

That is really interesting about James Connolly. Anyway, I asked not to start any Brit bashing, actually noticed it first over here around Anzac Day. Feckin Aussies...

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed PDN


Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the so called war for the freedom of small nations. I thought that was pretty obvious. Also, Italy fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary in WW1.

Italy was initially part of the German/Austro-Hungarian-Turkish allies, but failed to enter the war despite agreing to, there was no real appetite for it in Italy. Towrds the end of the war it joined in with the French/British etc alliance but still had territories taken off it at Versaille.

Shutuplaura

Italy was a member of the Central Powers, initially stayed neutral and joined the Entente in early 1915. Their expreience of war was horrible and particularly pointless becasue they gained feck all for their 600,000 odd killed.

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Italy was a member of the Central Powers, initially stayed neutral and joined the Entente in early 1915. Their expreience of war was horrible and particularly pointless becasue they gained feck all for their 600,000 odd killed.

Which was a contributing factor to the rise of Il Duce I believe.

It is very easy to see how the various treaties after WWI were the main cause of WWII.

TerrorFirmer

Did anyone actually answer the original question? Germany was not really a democracy in practical terms until after the war, it was a constitutional monarchy, the Kaiser appointed the executive and the reichstag could only pass/block new legislation, the executive really ran the country and was answerable only to the kaiser.

Shutuplaura

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Did anyone actually answer the original question? Germany was not really a democracy in practical terms until after the war, it was a constitutional monarchy, the Kaiser appointed the executive and the reichstag could only pass/block new legislation, the executive really ran the country and was answerable only to the kaiser.

Cheers for answering! Just two questions - Were the members of the executive drawn from the reichstag or could any one be appointed? As far as I'm aware in the UK the Queen has to give her assent to any bill before it becomes law and technically she doesn't have to but is bound by the UK's unwritten consitution to do so. Were the Kaisers powers similar or was his role in government more active? The reason I ask is that the kaisers role is described as constitutional but it does sound like he had a lot of power.

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

I didn't think that WW1 was at all necessary, for any reason. Was this just some idea that was dreamt up after the event to try and justify the waste of life? I know that in the late 18th/early 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian Empire built fortifications on it's Northern borders in case the Prussians made a play for their territory, but I assumed that because the Germans backed the Austrians re WW1, they had overcome their mutual distrust.

The reason for fortification of the austrian border was because prior to unification there was a question over which major German province/state would unite the people-Prussia or Austria? Austria decided to stick with Hungary, and Prussia united the rest (or most of the rest) of the Germanic states.

Also the original question, after unification Prussia being the biggest province held the most power, and most of the ruling class were drawn from the Prussian Junker class, and as you probably know the Prussian monarch became the German monarch. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the Kaisers power Germanys government was very lopsided. Also, I don't believe Germany was planning on expanding, except possibly to annex Austria.
Finally if you are looking for more books on the subject SUP, keep an eye out for anything connected to the Volksgemeinschaft.

Red Hand

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Cheers for answering! Just two questions - Were the members of the executive drawn from the reichstag or could any one be appointed? As far as I'm aware in the UK the Queen has to give her assent to any bill before it becomes law and technically she doesn't have to but is bound by the UK's unwritten consitution to do so.

Doesn't the Queen "invite" the winning leader of the election to become Prime Minister?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

The reason for fortification of the austrian border was because prior to unification there was a question over which major German province/state would unite the people-Prussia or Austria? Austria decided to stick with Hungary, and Prussia united the rest (or most of the rest) of the Germanic states.

Also the original question, after unification Prussia being the biggest province held the most power, and most of the ruling class were drawn from the Prussian Junker class, and as you probably know the Prussian monarch became the German monarch. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the Kaisers power Germanys government was very lopsided. Also, I don't believe Germany was planning on expanding, except possibly to annex Austria.
Finally if you are looking for more books on the subject SUP, keep an eye out for anything connected to the Volksgemeinschaft.

then why invade Belgium, or was that just getting their retaliation in first?

Victor

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Recently I've been reading a bit about how the First World War was necessary to prevent a totlitarian state taking over Europe. Now, besides the fact that Germany probably didn't intend to occupy the whole of Europe, I'd always thought that Imperial Germany was a democracy, with a representative parliment and all that and the Kaiser sitting at the top with only limited power. Isn't this the case?

Note Germany was much more of a federal type empire than the French or Britsh ones that were very much top-down. The state princes held a lot of power, politically and militarily.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then why invade Belgium, or was that just getting their retaliation in first?

Belgium was merely a convenient way into France.

Fratton Fred

Victor wrote: »

Note Germany was much more of a federal type empire than the French or Britsh ones that were very much top-down. The state princes held a lot of power, politically and militarily.

Belgium was merely a convenient way into France.

I know that, which is why i was always surprised the Maginot line stopped at Belgium, surely when the French built it, the Belgians took one look at it and thought, great here we go again..

I don't understand why Germany kicked it all of, if their only intentions were to annex Austria.

From what I can see, the rivalry between the European powers just boiled over and as soon as the Arch Duke was shot Germany used it as an excuse to take the early initiative.

In my opinion, whilst WWI was a needless waste of life, the situation in Europe had to be addresed and as there was no League of Nations or UN, war was the inevitable conclusion of Imperial posturing.

Victor

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know that, which is why i was always surprised the Maginot line stopped at Belgium, surely when the French built it, the Belgians took one look at it and thought, great here we go again..

If you mean 1940. Maginot extended to the coast, but was quite incomplete.

I don't understand why Germany kicked it all of, if their only intentions were to annex Austria.

When?

Fratton Fred

Victor wrote: »

If you mean 1940. Maginot extended to the coast, but was quite incomplete.
When?

My bad then, I though Maginot stopped at the French-Belgian border.

I was referring to Brian the Bards comment that Germany probably wasn't trying to expand. Countries not looking to expand don't usually invade their neighbours.

Black hole sun

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My bad then, I though Maginot stopped at the French-Belgian border.

I was referring to Brian the Bards comment that Germany probably wasn't trying to expand. Countries not looking to expand don't usually invade their neighbours.

They invaded Belgium as part of their Schlieffen Plan in order to win a two front war against France and Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

From what I gather they were intending on keeping Belgium after the war but they didnt invade with the objective of doing so.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My bad then, I though Maginot stopped at the French-Belgian border.

According to the World at War DVD box set (best Christmas present EVER) the Maginot line was originally built to guard only the French-German border. They started extending it late on but it was not finished by the time the Germans invaded in 1940. And anyway, it didn't guard the Ardennes thinking it to be impassible.

They got that sadly wrong.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

According to the World at War DVD box set (best Christmas present EVER) the Maginot line was originally built to guard only the French-German border. They started extending it late on but it was not finished by the time the Germans invaded in 1940. And anyway, it didn't guard the Ardennes thinking it to be impassible.

They got that sadly wrong.

I must get that on DVD, I remember when it was on TV, excellent series.

You have to feel for the Belgians, they were kind of the motorway between two neighbours who hated each other.

PDN

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have to feel for the Belgians, they were kind of the motorway between two neighbours who hated each other.

So they took out their frustrations on the poor Congolese.

Oops! Sorry, I forgot that other colonial systems were nice and humane and only the British mistreated anyone else. My bad, I'm still getting used to the rules of this board.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My bad then, I though Maginot stopped at the French-Belgian border.

I was referring to Brian the Bards comment that Germany probably wasn't trying to expand. Countries not looking to expand don't usually invade their neighbours.

I was referring to the previous Prussian wars ; Austria-Prussia, Franco-Prussian (was there a third?) ejmaztec wondered why Austria would want to defend its border from Prussia and I believe the reason would've been the fear of invasion. After Germany united it certainly didn't want to expand, and Bismarck didn't care much for colonies, although the Kaiser took on some I believe.


Also, lolz at PDN.

Capt'n Midnight

technically the congo wasn't a belgian colony at the beginning
leopold was the ruler, and the Germans got involved in the scramble for africa with a vengence, a bit like the arms race, but they treated the people really,really badly. Genocide in Namibia and Tanzinia. But such things were done by all major powers, the mau-mau rising in kenya resulted in about 50,000 kenyans dying. Roughly the same as US troups killed in Vietnam. The number of whites killed was less than died in traffic accidents in the capital. Algeria was later and Portugal's colonies later still.

Black hole sun

brianthebard wrote: »

I was referring to the previous Prussian wars ; Austria-Prussia, Franco-Prussian (was there a third?)

Prussia-Denmark in between those two I think.

Shutuplaura

I think the Maginot line didn't extend to the coast becasue until the mid 1930's Belgium was allied to France and the UK - they had been an ally since the war. The Belgians fortified their own border with Germany as part of a similar but less famous network, and when they reembraced neuterality, it left a gap in French defences.

Shutuplaura

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

technically the congo wasn't a belgian colony at the beginning
leopold was the ruler, and the Germans got involved in the scramble for africa with a vengence, a bit like the arms race, but they treated the people really,really badly. Genocide in Namibia and Tanzinia. But such things were done by all major powers, the mau-mau rising in kenya resulted in about 50,000 kenyans dying. Roughly the same as US troups killed in Vietnam. The number of whites killed was less than died in traffic accidents in the capital. Algeria was later and Portugal's colonies later still.

One of the lesser known fronts of the war was in German East Africa. The German forces consisted mostly of natve troops and a few German officers and NCO's. In the 1950's the Bundesrepublic decided to pay the veterns pension to the remaining native veterns left alive in the region. To prove that they were former soldiers they had to pass a german parade drill test using a broom as a makeshft rifle. Oddly, a few episodes of the Young Inmdiana Jones Cronicles were set in the middle of it.

cabinteelytom

Pre 1914 Germany was practicing imperialism...in Poland (which had no existence as a state or even a placename after the 'third partition' in , I think, 1795).
I have been trying to find out about those Prussian activities in the former (now again Polish territories) through out the nineteenth century. Lest we forget is my generous motive. All brought to a crashing halt by that nightmare super-pseudo-slav (Stalin) to whom modern Poland owes so much.

meathstevie

Fratton Fred is right pointing to a naval arms race between the Brits and the young up and coming unified Germany. The malarky in the Balkans was only an excuse to get going. You have to keep in mind that since after Waterloo Bismarck's unified Germany ( that man was a political and military genius ) was the first serious challenger on the scene who could have threatened the British position on a global level. The US was still a very small relatively insignificant military power in those days. And as for Tsarist Russia. Chaos and disorganisation was it's natural state of being, something like the Jeltsin years in the more recent past.

Fratton Fred

meathstevie wrote: »

Fratton Fred is right pointing to a naval arms race between the Brits and the young up and coming unified Germany. The malarky in the Balkans was only an excuse to get going. You have to keep in mind that since after Waterloo Bismarck's unified Germany ( that man was a political and military genius ) was the first serious challenger on the scene who could have threatened the British position on a global level. The US was still a very small relatively insignificant military power in those days. And as for Tsarist Russia. Chaos and disorganisation was it's natural state of being, something like the Jeltsin years in the more recent past.

Since Trafalgar, Britain had pretty much full control of the seas, certainly from a European perspective. With the race to build the Dreadnought's and German/French aggression towards each other, suddenly Britain was facing a threat. The German navy was still smaller, but if the Germans invaded france and took over their navy, it would have created a force much larger than Britain's. This threw Britain into the unusual position of becoming a French ally.

Britain didn't give a knats chuff about France or Belgium, it was looking after it's own interests and trying to maintain the status quo in Europe which was being threatened by Germany. As you say, the shenanigans in the Balkans was the spark that ignited the tinder box.

meathstevie

A little sidetrack since people mentioned the Maginot line. Those defences went on into Belgium allright and included a few fortresses and anti-tank defences. France was by all means technically superior to Germany at the start of WWII and recently before and could have probably made a decisive move against Germany when they reoccupied the western bank of the Rhine in 1938.

The French Renault tanks and front wheel drive vehicles for example were vastly superior to the German armour and trucks ( even later on the Eastern front the Wehrmacht relied heavily on horsedrawn wagons ) in 1940 but what made the difference was German strategy.

They for example used paratroopers to eliminate the main Belgian fortifications and came straight through the Ardennes and the Elzas what very few deemded to be possible. What really made the difference was that the French were stuck in WWI way of thinking : defence along a broad front while the Germans used a tactic they called "Schwerpunkt" ( excuse my spelling ). They massed their armour and very effective Stuka divebombers in a very thight formation and literally broke through the French lines and steamed straight for Paris while the French were spread out and out manoeuvred. It probably also didn't help that Petain's political convictions were fairly compatible with Hitler's and that 1 in 4 French men of fighting age were casualties in WWI to put fire in their bellies.

jhegarty

Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Edmund: Do you mean "Why did the war start?"


Baldrick: Yeah.


George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.


Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.


George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!


Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.


Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.


Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.


Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.


George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...


Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.


Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?


Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.


George: What was that, sir?


Edmund: It was bollocks.


Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.

Capt'n Midnight

jhegarty wrote:

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

qft

brianthebard

meathstevie wrote: »

Fratton Fred is right pointing to a naval arms race between the Brits and the young up and coming unified Germany. The malarky in the Balkans was only an excuse to get going. You have to keep in mind that since after Waterloo Bismarck's unified Germany ( that man was a political and military genius ) was the first serious challenger on the scene who could have threatened the British position on a global level.

I'm not sure I agree about Germany's threat in the early days at least, firstly Bismarck declared Germany a satiated state, so that other nations would know that he had got all the war out of him and wasn't planning on continuing to expand. Secondly as we know the monarchies of Britain and Germany were quite close at the time. However when it came to alliances Germany had to maintain ties with Austria, its germanic brother, (and I'm not certain but I think A-H was an enemy of Britain) and from then on relations between Germany and Britain were less close.

PDN

Shutuplaura wrote: »

One of the lesser known fronts of the war was in German East Africa. The German forces consisted mostly of natve troops and a few German officers and NCO's. In the 1950's the Bundesrepublic decided to pay the veterns pension to the remaining native veterns left alive in the region. To prove that they were former soldiers they had to pass a german parade drill test using a broom as a makeshft rifle. Oddly, a few episodes of the Young Inmdiana Jones Cronicles were set in the middle of it.

I am currently reading Edward Paice's Tip & Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. Paice states that one out of every eight adult inhabitants of British East Africa died during the war. If this astounding figure is correct then that would mean that British East Africa suffered, proportionately, the second highest death toll of any nation (after the Ottoman Empire). Of course the Ottoman figures are somewhat skewed by the fact that the Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians which, while it occurred in the war years, was not actually part of the war per se.

TerrorFirmer

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree about Germany's threat in the early days at least, firstly Bismarck declared Germany a satiated state, so that other nations would know that he had got all the war out of him and wasn't planning on continuing to expand. Secondly as we know the monarchies of Britain and Germany were quite close at the time. However when it came to alliances Germany had to maintain ties with Austria, its germanic brother, (and I'm not certain but I think A-H was an enemy of Britain) and from then on relations between Germany and Britain were less close.

Well there was the incident in 1875 when they suggested another preemptive war and were bluffed, so I don't think anybody felt that Germany was a content state. Also, I think Austria Hungary was viewed fairly passively by Great Britian, as a natural enemy of Russia who was in turn Britain's greatest adversary until 1914 generally in terms of expansionism they probably would have been more inclined to look upon them favorably before the war forced sides.

Capt'n Midnight

PDN wrote:

I am currently reading Edward Paice's Tip & Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. Paice states that one out of every eight adult inhabitants of British East Africa died during the war. If this astounding figure is correct then that would mean that British East Africa suffered, proportionately, the second highest death toll of any nation (after the Ottoman Empire).

Interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 up to 3 million dead.

Shutuplaura

PDN wrote: »

If this astounding figure is correct then that would mean that British East Africa suffered, proportionately, the second highest death toll of any nation (after the Ottoman Empire). Of course the Ottoman figures are somewhat skewed by the fact that the Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians which, while it occurred in the war years, was not actually part of the war per se.

Thanks for that interesting tidbit. Niall Ferguson is always talking about how the Scottish if considered seperately suffered the highest proportion of war dead per involved states. Taking a nationalistic pride in the numbers of your countrymen killed is grisly to say the least.