June 28, 1914, World War I triggered

[Picaro]

The Germans didn't follow the Schlieffen Plan, probably one reason why they didn't succeed in France. They were improvising because fighting Russia, France, and Britain all at once was never part of their strategic planning.

I guess when they launched the Schliefflin-Moltke Plan they were talking about another Schliefflin. The changes Moltke made were to not invade the Netherlands, and shifting divisions away from the assault through Belgium to the center; this latter weakened the invasion and left the German right flank wide open and left insufficient reserves to take Paris, hence the failure. On the eastern front it went pretty well comparatively. They overestimated the ability of the Dual Monarchy to win quickly over the Serbs, though, and that front bogged down pretty fast, leaving their Ottoman allies to fend for themselves.

They weren't improvising, they had been planning on a two-front war for a long time; all they were waiting for was the pretext. The other countries' arms buildup made it necessary to force the issues as soon as possible.

So if I understand you correctly your theory is that the First World War unfolded according to a German plan. Is that right? I think you may need to refer to more than one author to overturn history.

It isn't a 'theory' but what happened in real life. If such things bother people they should stick to posting in the happy talk threads and posting their funny pics of kittens and puppies. They had a three year window from 1914 to go for their expansion and defeat their enemies. Nobody else was unhappy with the status quo, and Wilhelm was, so he and his staff went ahead and chose war. They didn't have to, nobody forced them into war, it was all their own decisions to, not some 'accident'.

 

[Discombobulated]

I guess when they launched the Schliefflin-Moltke Plan they were talking about another Schliefflin. The changes Moltke made were to not invade the Netherlands, and shifting divisions away from the assault through Belgium to the center; this latter weakened the invasion and left the German right flank wide open and left insufficient reserves to take Paris, hence the failure. On the eastern front it went pretty well comparatively. They overestimated the ability of the Dual Monarchy to win quickly over the Serbs, though, and that front bogged down pretty fast, leaving their Ottoman allies to fend for themselves.

They weren't improvising, they had been planning on a two-front war for a long time; all they were waiting for was the pretext. The other countries' arms buildup made it necessary to force the issues as soon as possible.

So if I understand you correctly your theory is that the First World War unfolded according to a German plan. Is that right? I think you may need to refer to more than one author to overturn history.

It isn't a 'theory' but what happened in real life. If such things bother people they should stick to posting in the happy talk threads and posting their funny pics of kittens and puppies. They had a three year window from 1914 to go for their expansion and defeat their enemies. Nobody else was unhappy with the status quo, and Wilhelm was, so he and his staff went ahead and chose war. They didn't have to, nobody forced them into war, it was all their own decisions to, not some 'accident'.

Then surely you must be able to point to the long list of scholars who can validate your theory.

 

[Picaro]

So if I understand you correctly your theory is that the First World War unfolded according to a German plan. Is that right? I think you may need to refer to more than one author to overturn history.

It isn't a 'theory' but what happened in real life. If such things bother people they should stick to posting in the happy talk threads and posting their funny pics of kittens and puppies. They had a three year window from 1914 to go for their expansion and defeat their enemies. Nobody else was unhappy with the status quo, and Wilhelm was, so he and his staff went ahead and chose war. They didn't have to, nobody forced them into war, it was all their own decisions to, not some 'accident'.

Then surely you must be able to point to the long list of scholars who can validate your theory.

Surely you can point to the long list of scholars who still claim it was just accidental and unplanned, despite all the years of preparation on Germany's part.

 

[Discombobulated]

It isn't a 'theory' but what happened in real life. If such things bother people they should stick to posting in the happy talk threads and posting their funny pics of kittens and puppies. They had a three year window from 1914 to go for their expansion and defeat their enemies. Nobody else was unhappy with the status quo, and Wilhelm was, so he and his staff went ahead and chose war. They didn't have to, nobody forced them into war, it was all their own decisions to, not some 'accident'.

Then surely you must be able to point to the long list of scholars who can validate your theory.

Surely you can point to the long list of scholars who still claim it was just accidental and unplanned, despite all the years of preparation on Germany's part.

This is the unfortunate result of a Wikipedia based education. The First World War had many causes, a German plan was not one of them. I wonder which legitimate historians would suggest that Germany planned to fight France, Russia, and Britain simultaneously?

 

[Picaro]

I see you have no long list of modern historians for us. I guess you're embarrassed at not having read any of them, past or current.

 

[Discombobulated]

I see you have no long list of modern historians for us. I guess you're embarrassed at not having read any of them, past or current.

I can see that you're not really up to this. I've forgotten more about the First World War than you ever knew. I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion on this subject with someone. I can still hope.

 

[Discombobulated]

But if you're interested in learning you could start with "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" , both written by Robert K. Massie. That should give you a little background....if you're at all inclined to read books.

 

[Discombobulated]

Or if you prefer historians contemporary to the time I recommend " My Experiences in the World War" by John J. Pershing

 

[Picaro]

I see you have no long list of modern historians for us. I guess you're embarrassed at not having read any of them, past or current.

I can see that you're not really up to this. I've forgotten more about the First World War than you ever knew. I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion on this subject with someone. I can still hope.

I see by this and your following posts you haven't even read my posts, nor anything current on the topic, and hope nobody notices. Or maybe you just can't remember past one post at a time.

Still no long list for us. That's okay; nobody really expects you to be interested in serious discussions. And don't forget to throw in the 'pop culture revisionism' post as well, since that, along with your last posts, seem to be your usual responses to anything. Meanwhile, we can just go with the latest scholarship and the book I linked to.

 

[Picaro]

But if you're interested in learning you could start with "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" , both written by Robert K. Massie.

Already recommended Dreadnought, which of course confirms my posts, not yours, and I own that one, along with B. Tuchman's book and Gilbert's. If you actually read posts you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself so obviously.

That should give you a little background....if you're at all inclined to read books.

Lol ... you should try reading some sometime. Try reading one of the latest ones by top scholars, like Cataclysm by Stevenson, as opposed to popular histories for high school kids written decades ago; otherwise you have nothing to criticize re his work and are reduced to your usual clueless trolling.

 

[Discombobulated]

But if you're interested in learning you could start with "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" , both written by Robert K. Massie.

Already recommended Dreadnought, which of course confirms my posts, not yours, and I own that one, along with B. Tuchman's book and Gilbert's. If you actually read posts you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself so obviously.

That should give you a little background....if you're at all inclined to read books.

Lol ... you should try reading some sometime. Try reading one of the latest ones by top scholars, like Cataclysm by Stevenson, as opposed to popular histories for high school kids written decades ago; otherwise you have nothing to criticize re his work and are reduced to your usual clueless trolling.

You may have read Dreadnought, you just didn't understand it.

 

[Picaro]

But if you're interested in learning you could start with "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" , both written by Robert K. Massie.

Already recommended Dreadnought, which of course confirms my posts, not yours, and I own that one, along with B. Tuchman's book and Gilbert's. If you actually read posts you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself so obviously.

That should give you a little background....if you're at all inclined to read books.

Lol ... you should try reading some sometime. Try reading one of the latest ones by top scholars, like Cataclysm by Stevenson, as opposed to popular histories for high school kids written decades ago; otherwise you have nothing to criticize re his work and are reduced to your usual clueless trolling.

You may have read Dreadnought, you just didn't understand it.

Of course I understood it, but so far your 'long list' is ... one? In that other post I think you meant you've forgotten 'history' you never knew in the first place, which is impossible.

 

[Discombobulated]

Already recommended Dreadnought, which of course confirms my posts, not yours, and I own that one, along with B. Tuchman's book and Gilbert's. If you actually read posts you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself so obviously.

Lol ... you should try reading some sometime. Try reading one of the latest ones by top scholars, like Cataclysm by Stevenson, as opposed to popular histories for high school kids written decades ago; otherwise you have nothing to criticize re his work and are reduced to your usual clueless trolling.

You may have read Dreadnought, you just didn't understand it.

Of course I understood it, but so far your 'long list' is ... one? In that other post I think you meant you've forgotten 'history' than you ever knew in the first place, which is impossible.

There is no list because there are no historians anywhere who would even begin to validate your superficial theory of the First World War being caused by a grand German plan for the conquest of Europe.

 

[Picaro]

You may have read Dreadnought, you just didn't understand it.

Of course I understood it, but so far your 'long list' is ... one? In that other post I think you meant you've forgotten 'history' than you ever knew in the first place, which is impossible.

There is no list because there are no historians anywhere who would even begin to validate your superficial theory of the First World War being caused by a grand German plan for the conquest of Europe.

Already named one, and the book he documents it in. Besides, we're supposed to be waiting for that 'long list' of historians you claim refute the latest research, i.e. your fantasy, not mine; so far you've listed one that allegedly says so, but haven't posted any cites of it, so we don't know if you ever actually read it or not. Personally, I'm certain you've never read a book on it at all.

 

[Discombobulated]

Of course I understood it, but so far your 'long list' is ... one? In that other post I think you meant you've forgotten 'history' than you ever knew in the first place, which is impossible.

There is no list because there are no historians anywhere who would even begin to validate your superficial theory of the First World War being caused by a grand German plan for the conquest of Europe.

Already named one, and the book he documents it in. Besides, we're supposed to be waiting for that 'long list' of historians you claim refute the latest research, i.e. your fantasy, not mine; so far you've listed one that allegedly says so, but haven't posted any cites of it, so we don't know if you ever actually read it or not. Personally, I'm certain you've never read a book on it at all.

You have absolutely nothing to substantiate your half ass theory. No evidence of any kind. You probably need to actually read these books to understand them.

 

[Picaro]

I understand; your own lack of any rebuttals by any of these 'scholars' you claim are out there is all we need to know about your knowledge on the topic.

Have any cute pics of your cat? Those are really popular, and about your speed.

 

[Discombobulated]

I understand; your own lack of any rebuttals by any of these 'scholars' you claim are out there is all we need to know about your knowledge on the topic.

Have any cute pics of your cat? Those are really popular, and about your speed.

You have yet to present anything of any substance to rebut. Maybe when you've first learned about generally accepted history you can then launch into your little pet theories.

 

[Ernie S.]

I understand; your own lack of any rebuttals by any of these 'scholars' you claim are out there is all we need to know about your knowledge on the topic.

Have any cute pics of your cat? Those are really popular, and about your speed.

You have yet to present anything of any substance to rebut. Maybe when you've first learned about generally accepted history you can then launch into your little pet theories.

What have you learned?