Imperial Germany - Pre 1914

Shutuplaura · 10-02-2008 1:14am #1

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 · 10-02-2008 2:50am

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 · 10-02-2008 3:01am

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 · 10-02-2008 2:36pm

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 · 10-02-2008 6:50pm

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 · 10-02-2008 9:14pm

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 · 11-02-2008 7:04pm

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 · 11-02-2008 11:18pm

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 · 12-02-2008 10:32am

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 · 12-02-2008 3:52pm

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 · 13-02-2008 9:27am

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 · 13-02-2008 10:13am

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 · 13-02-2008 10:15am

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 · 14-02-2008 10:51am

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 · 14-02-2008 1:15pm

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 · 14-02-2008 7:37pm

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 · 14-02-2008 11:51pm

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 · 18-02-2008 1:48pm

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 · 18-02-2008 2:41pm

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 · 18-02-2008 2:46pm

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 · 18-02-2008 3:01pm

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 · 18-02-2008 6:17pm

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 · 18-02-2008 6:18pm

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 · 18-02-2008 6:42pm

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 · 18-02-2008 8:16pm

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 · 18-02-2008 9:10pm

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 · 18-02-2008 9:48pm

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 · 19-02-2008 12:30pm

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 · 20-02-2008 11:02am

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 · 20-02-2008 11:08am

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 · 06-03-2008 11:01pm

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.

Imperial Germany - Pre 1914

Comments