Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire.
The old "Wilhelm wanted to destroy the British Empire" is at best a self-fulfulling prophecy....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
...at worst a lie.
Wilhelm had no such intentions.
In fact, if he (or any German leader at the time during the late-19th Century) had really wanted to do that, they could have done that...
Up to the late-1900th/early-20th century, Russia was aggressively expansive, clashing with the British Empire.
St Petersburg would have loved an alliance with common goals with Berlin, in order for them to achieve their geopolitical goals. German leaders refused. St Petersburg would have loved to crush the Ottoman Empire, and thereby clash with GB, and take the Dardanelles (free access to the Med).
Also to eclipse British interests in the ME (Persia, etc.), see "The Great Game".
For that, a strong alliance with Berlin would have been a prerequisite.
Together, they could have "ruled the world", if only Berlin were willing to "sell off" Vienna, and crush the French in the west...
Together, St Petersburg and Berlin sat on the "pivot" of the world, and nothing could have stopped them from dominating Europe and Asia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Neither Bismarck nor Wilhelm II were interested.
I assume that would make them both very popular in the UK...for "saving the British Empire" :-)
But, Berlin was not interested in the dubious privilege of eternal war that comes with ruling the world.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why are you lying "by omission" about the Haldane Mission"?
Berlin knew exactly what London would do in case of a war on the continent.
They admitted it themselves, or one could say had been tricked into admitting it themselves during the Haldane Mission in 1912.
Most English books or websites simply conclude a very simplistic "Haldane went to try and find a solution for the Naval Arms race, but the...ahem...'nasty arrogant Krauts' refused", or something like that....lmfao "British history"...
Berlin wanted London to recognize that it had a right to defend itself from an unprovoked attack.
I'll add a German link, because this part is often "omitted" from English speaking sites, twisting the perception of readers...
Berlin suggested (amongst other) "British neutrality in case of a war [on the continent] in which Germany could not be seen as the aggressor" [exact translation of the request]
Note, that this was a kind request to London, to stay out of it, if Germany is attacked without causing/provoking an attack herself (obviously, even if not mentioned, by Russia and France). In other words, the purest form of self-defense imaginable.
GB refused.
https://historyretros.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/haldane-mission-in-berlin/
In return Berlin offered to substantially reduce the Navy. GB refused, because London knew that Germany could not possibly bear the financial strain of competing with the massive French and Russian land forces re-armament, and would have to reduce her naval expenses anyway. Germany needed to free resources to strengthen the army, to counter French/Russian aggressive re-arming, meaning less ships could be financed.
GB had already "won" the Naval Arms race, because Germany would have to counter the aggressively re-arming French/Russian militaries.
It was after the failure of this meeting, that Berlin accepted the fact that whatever the cause of a war, GB would be the enemy. There was no other way to interpret the British stance in 1912.
Two wrongs, never make "a right".
Also, it doesn't really matter how one justifies London's stance, because London's stance on having the "God given right" to "balance powers" on the continent without compromise, or negotiations, lead to the failure of Europe as "the centre of world power".
Also, it played a large role in the fall of the British Empire itself.
The idea of the elites to "balance powers" in order to avoid wars, had morphed into an arrogant one-sided affair based on the imperialist rivalry. It was not decided "in concert" as in 1815, but simply dictated to Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 A few quotes does not change the facts.
Here are the facts, as anybody can discover for himself: as a general rule, navies are divided into certain categories...
Also, as a general rule, "global reach" can only be achieved by a Blue Water Navy...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
...as advocated by Mahan, and that is as true today as it was in 1850, 1900, or 1950.
No blue water navy = no global reach
The global reach achieved by a Blue Water Navy is composed of two elements.
1) the design of the ships themselves
2) logistics / naval bases
As to point 1 and 2.
If one studies the design of the German ships themselves, and German naval bases, one can only reach one conclusion.
Before WW1 there were never any plans for "global reach", i.e. any attempt to "rule the world" as often claimed.
As design criteria, one can simply look at the drawing (flared or raked bow = Blue Water Navy) and a few statistics like size, range, and livability.
The design elements of ships (true even today) are divided into two main criteria : offensive elements (firepower, speed and seakeeping) vs. defensive elements (armor protection, nr. of watertight compartments, sturdy construction).
Nations which desire "global reach", built fast, large, high firepower, long ranged, seaworthy vessels, supported by a dense network of naval bases, and international ports (either by alliance, or by own construction) supported by large fleets of tankers, repair ships, and replenishment ships.
Less emphasis is placed on armour, and much more on speed and range.
Nations which wish to concentrate on the own doorstep, built smaller, sturdier, ships with smaller caliber guns and more/thicker armor, and with with stubby bows (seakeeping less important, since designed for coastal waters).
In short, one can gather information about the policies of a nation, by merely looking at the design of its weapons. And this is as true for tanks as it is for ships...
A nation that built the S-tank (Sweden) had no desire to "rule the world" :-)
As for the design of the the Imperial German Navy's ships....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_German_Navy
....and you can see that from the destroyers (called "torpedo boats" right through to the big gun battleships, the design criteria fits that of the coast defense navy (today called "Green and Brown Water Navies"). You don't have to look at all of them, but maybe click on a few links and look at the specifications, and filter it with the information above.
As for the numbers of units built, that was a result of the alliance system. As the Russians found out at Tsushima, there was no point sending a large fleet halfway around the world, if the ships and crews were going to arrive in bad shape...
(No recreational facilities, docks, replenishment, etc.)
Simply having a lot of ships, doesn't imply wishing to "rule the world".
To conclude: any accusations of Germany trying to "steal something from the British Empire", or "trying to overpower the Royal Navy" or "threatening GB" are at best misconceptions, at worst straight out lies....
Germany has ports in the North Sea, and every right to protect these.
Your throwing in "North Sea" doesn't answer my question.
So I'll answer it myself: The newly united Germany built a navy to protect her shores/coastal towns and cities.
That fact is proven by the design of the ships themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Where does such misconception of "Germany wanting war" or "Wilhelm wanted to rule Europe", or variations of that come from?
Do you have any evidence for such a plan/scheme/strategy/etc?
Obviously, if this was true, it would have a name, or someone who advocated it.
So who or what was it?
Wilhelm was the "Trump" of that era, no arguments there, but he wasn't a warmonger.
He was an idiot who put his foot in his mouth all the time, but nothing else.
Also, scroll up to my comment starting with Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire.
If German leaders had wanted to rule Europe, or "rule the world", they could have done so.
1
-
@bolivar2153 We've already discussed this elsewhere.
Yes, Berlin had little direct interest in Balkan affairs.
Rather, "by proxy", via Vienna...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
Pre-WW1 Russia used (or rather misused) the new ambitious Balkan state Serbia as a strategic barrier, to avoid such an alliance between Berlin and Constantinople becoming effective (by disrupting river and rail connections).
Of course the existing alliance system was lopsided.
As soon as London joined Paris/St Petersburg, the Central Powers were at a strategic disadvantage.
An alliance between Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, and Constantinople would have rectified the existing imbalance, making a war of aggression by Paris and St Petersburg on the Central Powers less likely.
That was the intention.
If Serbia didn't want war, maybe they should have kept their house clean, and swept out the subversive elements from their government.
The old "poor little Serbia" is bs apologia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Ah, the "poor little (sovereign) nations"...
Spare me the snot and tears lecture.
More like the "hypocrisy of history"...
At the time, all major powers continued their ambitions of territorial expansion at the cost of minor sovereign states.
France attacked Siam, with a subsequent "little bit of land grabbing" (Laos) in 1893.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Siamese_War
...or....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis
Apparently, oh so righteous France didn't care much about the sovereignty of "little nations" when it came to expanding an own sphere of influence...
WIlhelm II who stood up for the "little nation" here (obviously, and as always in history with an own ulterior motive) was labeled the "bad guy".
Elsewhere, the USA eclipsed and annexed the "little nation" called the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898, and invaded and carved up Colombia when it wanted to build its Panama Canal...
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia
Of course, the locals were absolutely enchanted...
Constant British attempts to annex the internationally recognized Boer Republics because of own geopolitical ambitions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Of course, Wilhelm II, again "standing up for the little nation" was the "bad guy"...go figure...
Apparently, the sovereignty of little nations wasn't a big deal, while one was doing the invasions, regime change, or wars oneself:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/albion/article/methods-of-barbarism-and-the-rights-of-small-nations-war-propaganda-and-british-pluralism/E9B59C4BAC89A7859AB33D8901F2C406#
As always, it only becomes "an issue" when one "rules the world" and the roles are reversed....
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml
In the endless lists of crises, wars, military conquests, false flags, intrigues, and "expeditions" by warlike private companies, all with the objective of expanding the own sphere of influence, Wilhelm II's Germany must have seemed like a haven for pacifists to a neutral observer of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%9344
Death was lavishly sown in return for own gain.
But yeah...
"Poor Serbia".
No, I would not have fought for them in 1914, in the same way I would not have fought for the "sovereignty of poor Iraq" in 2003.
Would you?
If not, why contribute to the deaths of more innocents than necessary, by warmongering?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 @Bolivar "Grey turned Belgian neutrality into his cause célèbre. He told Prince Lichnowsky [German ambassador in London], that it would be extremely difficult to restrain public feeling in Britain if Germany violated Belgian neutrality.
Lichnowsky asked whether Grey could ‘give me a definite declaration of the neutrality of Great Britain on the condition that we [Germany] respected Belgian neutrality’. It was an astonishing suggestion, an enormous concession and one that could have spared Britain and Belgium the horrors of war. Lichnowsky was prepared to concede exactly what Grey claimed the British Cabinet wanted. Belgian sovereignty would be respected in exchange for a promise of Britain’s neutrality. Duplicitous as ever, Grey blurred the issue and avoided an honest reply, reassuring Lichnowsky that ‘for the present there was not the slightest intention of proceeding to hostilities against Germany’.
Lichnowsky to von Jagow, London, 1 August 1914, DD596, in Geiss, July 1914, p. 346.
Why did you stab all those poor Belgians in the back if you could have saved them with a conditional declaration of neutrality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why the (alleged) discussion between Grey and the German ambassador is (according to Occam's Razor) the most likely to be true, even if one claims "it never took place"?
Let's stick to this as our premise.
1) because according to the British Policy of Balance of Power, GB would never grant the status of neutrality, a military alliance, or any variation of Non-Aggression Pact with the most powerful continental country/alliance, whichever it is (after 1871, and German industrialisation, it just happened to be Germany) It was nothing personal.
GB would always ally against the most powerful country/alliance in case of war.
Therefore, any treaty of friendship with the most powerful country/alliance would contradict the Policy of Balance of Power. If it seems as if war is imminent, or unavoidable, or inevitable (whatever), GB would never declare its neutrality, sign a N/A Pact or any of the sort with the most powerful continental state or alliance.
That is what the policy practically dictates, and Grey followed it.
2) further proof is the Haldane Mission, in which the German delegation were informed that their request for British neutrality in case Germany was attacked, even if unprovoked could not be given = complete in line with London's stance ("we are the balancer of the continent").
3) that the Germans would justify their invasion of Belgium after they won the war. Yup.
You are simply too fixed on what happened, and therefore ignoring what could have happened.
Fact: Germany intended to win, and prepared for that eventuality.
In case Germany (whatsoever reason) had won WW1, their "written history" would have needed bloody good reasons for invading a neutral nation. Obviously, the German ambassador also knew Grey would never accept it. Why? Because of the Haldane Mission, Berlin already knew what the British stance was, and that London would refuse again, just like 1912.
The 2 requests were the German justification for when they won a war.
1
-
@bolivar2153 OK, thank you for the link. It refers to (or relates) to the "big picture", which was Europe.
Remember, Russia and France were both rapidly and massively arming themselves, and had own contingency plans to attack Germany (French Plan XVII, Russian Plan 19 aka "the steamroller to Berlin").
Of course, this did not threaten GB.
It did threaten Germany.
We can gladly discuss this further, but it isn't a part of the defined premise (see my previous comment).
So firsty: I assume you agree with me that the German offer of not invading Belgium, in return for a British declaration of neutrality, is then "most likely true"?
[Note, not the reasons why London refused, but the fact (or rather the "reasoning behind") that Berlin made this suggestion. Note: these are 2 different things, or "confused issues"]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Concerning your first comment.
Yes, the British position could certainly have been suspected, or deducted "in broad strokes" to anybody with at least some access to power. Deducted, but not known.
When we get to the micro level, IMO we must always filter information with "who knew what and when" did they know it.
Ambassadors are mostly nothing else but "glorified messager boys" asked to convey certain messages "from sealed envelopes" so to speak. Unless officially determined to negotiate (like Ribbentropp in Moscow before the Soviet-German N/A Pact in Aug 1939), they had no power to determine policy.
No, Lichnowsky wasn't stupid, but he wasn't a strategist either.
He was a diplomat, and therefore gave diplomatic (aka "nice/pleasing") answers. We shouldn't overestimate the words he used significance.
Grey on the other hand "filtered" every response according to the "logic" of how to keep European powers balanced. That is what was demanded of him.
The discussion wasn't a negotiation.
Grey's intent was to favor Russia and France, not "keep the peace" or anything else. Note: nowhere in the policy are words like "peace", "war", "treaty", "pact", etc. mentioned.
The means on how to keep the balance was left to whomever had the position to decide, whatever time we are discussing. The policy didn't have any restrictions on *means*.
Consider the balance of power on the continent in 1914, and in this case specifically July/August 1914.
Austria-Hungary was way more powerful than Serbia.
Russia/Serbia was more powerful than Austria-Hungary.
Germany/Austria-Hungary was more powerful than Serbia/Russia, as well Serbia/Russia/France.
Conclusion?
London's position favored France, seen as in the weaker position.
Note:
Grey's position as you noted it, granted France the "right" to implement her Plan XVII (plus by implication, Russia her Plan 19), favorable to London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 I can't see your entire comment.
I assume you edited it before it got "placed", meaning that it got swiped by YT.
From the part I can see in my notification panel.
Correct.
Berlin didn't give him the powers of negotiation. Especially not unlimited powers of negotiation, because he wasn't a military strategist...
As long as he got the (expected) negative/inconclusive/evasive answer from Grey, then that was all Berlin wanted.
Of course, Grey could have positively surprised him, and given him a British declaration of neutrality.
One which did not endanger any British interests (for example, no German invasion of neutrals, no German navy in the channel, no expansion of the war to the colonies, etc. This is a "list" to which you can gladly contribute to, in case you consider anything else a "British interest")
Fact:
The Policy of Balance of Power practically dictated that GB would not remain neutral.
"Belgium" had nothing to do with it.
1
-
@bolivar2153 I've already answered that :-)
Remember the comment I wrote that "states don't need reasons for war"?
That is basically it.
Initially, Wilhelm wanted Austria-Hungary to "teach pesky Serbia" a lesson, and to "settle matters quickly" before anybody could react and the crisis to draw wider circles.
The last thing that was needed was long drawn out debates, which wouldn't solve the core issue anyway (Russia using Serbia a strategic barrier, while itself having ambitions to gain the Dardanelles).
That Russia would support Belgrade was a no-brainer, so that a few threats to scare off Russia was deemed to be enough.
A little holiday in Norway, and once he returned, a new ruler for the defeated Serbia could be decided on.
The bloodless (for Germany) reward would be unhindered access to Constantinople.
Next holiday. The Topkapi Palace, and an alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople was the aim.
Effect: a truly balanced continent, in which Germany did not have to fear becoming the victim of potential future Russian (Plan 19) and French (Plan XVII) aggression.
That was the intention.
Like I said.
States don't need a reason for war.
They make excuses, and for the Central Powers "the poor Archduke" was what would rally the support against "nasty Serbia".
There is no need to point out that this backfired.
There were multiple reasons why this backfired, and not all of it was Berlin or Vienna's fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1