Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: World War I

  1. #1
    Humanist Senior Member A.Saturnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Aachen
    Posts
    5,181

    Post

    On July the 29th 1914 the chief-commander of the German military Colonel-General von Moltke wrote to Reichskanzler Bethmann-Hollweg: “One can´t deny that this situation is quite well inscininated from Russian side. Under continuous assurance that it doesn´t ‘mobilize‘ but only ‘sets preparations for all cases‘ ... it makes itself so much ready for war, that it ... will be able to advance in a few days. With that it brings Austria in a desperate situation and lays the responsibility on it, by forcing Austria to prepare itself against a Russian surprise.... Germany will also be forced to mobilize and then Russia will be able to say to the world: ‘I didn´t want war, but Germany has caused it‘. So will and must the things come if not, one nearly might say, a miracle happens to prevent a war in the last hour that will annihilate the culture of nearly whole Europe for decades to come... “

    We all know that no miracle appeared and it came just as he predicted.
    Lloyd George said 1920 in the League of Nations, none of the leading men had wanted the war. But they all had part in bringing it upon the people of Europe. They all had a reason for the war. Germany wanted to get rid off threats from France and Russia and become Europe´s leading power. France wanted vengeance for Sedan and to put down Germany´s rise. Russia wanted to increase it´s influence in Europe and to recover it´s reputation after the war against Japan. Austria wanted to save it´s influence on the Balkan and to keep itself from falling apart. Britain wanted to get rid off it´s main economical rival and stop Germany from becoming a global power.
    Rivalties and nationalism rose so high in pre-war Europe that war had become inevitable. The British “Saturday Review“ had started 1895 with propaganda for the destruction of Germany – “Germaniam esse delendam“ Britain also became part of the “Entente Cordiale“ which became later the “triple-entente“ that was directed against Germany. In France nationalists demanded revenge against Germany and accused pacifists like Jean Jaurés (who was killed by them just before the outbreak of the war) of being traitors. German Emperor Willhelm II saw himself as a sort of Siegfried and believed the only hope for Germany was the offense. In Austria, the only man who had been able to maneuver the empire through it´s dangerous instability was killed by Serbian extremists. And Belgium? Maybe Belgium has the least responsibility, however it had chosen it´s side early. During the war of 70/71 it had provided the French partisans with weapons, even violating international law. As ally to the entente-powers, its position posed a serious threat to Germany´s main industrial areas.
    In the crisis of 1914 Germany saw itself isolated with Austria as its only ally. So it granted Austria every support in the inevitable conflict with Russia. In accordence to the treaties of the entente France mobilized its army on 1st august (mobilization was seen as the factual start of war in that time). Germany mobilized on 2nd august and - in the belief a defensive war could never be won (following a common but outdated military doctrine in that time) – invaded Belgium after the asked permission to cross Belgian territory was declined. This gave Britain enough reason to enter the war (though, as the members of the cabinet John Burns and John Morley later declared, the British cabinet had already decided in favour for a war against Germany before the violation of Belgian neutrality).
    History the written by the victors, but it´s not possible to point the finger on one sole aggressor who started World War I. And also no one was only victim except for the many innocents that were wasted in that war on all fronts.

    This is not written in disrespect for the soldiers of WWI. It´s important to remember the fallen and honour them. But what they should remind us of is not their achievements but the need to prevent such unnecessary suffering from happening ever again in the midst of Europe.

  2. #2
    Member Member ShadeFlanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    517

    Default

    Yep digging up corpses today.
    Anyway I think everyone is to blame. France wanted revenge for 1870, Germany wanted to assert itself as the new world power. England saw Germany as real treath and wanted to counter them. Russia had serious internal social problems and tried to divert attention from that by war.
    Belgium was the last country to want the war: we were making big profits of our middle-man situation between Germany and France (added to our newly acquired income from the african colonies). Belgium was by no means siding with France in the decades before 1914: the Flemish cultural group had gained more influence (being Germanic they naturally had a good relation with germany) and Germany had become the nr1 trading partner of Belgium (replacing France). In 1870 the situation was entirely different with the walloons (francophones) having nearly complete economic and political power in Belgium, so helping France would have been normal.
    That WW1 was unavoidable was clear even as early as 1908 when the belgian military desperetaly asked for serious investments in defence of belgian soil. The chances of both a german and french invasion were considered very real. In 1912 the government finally gave in (up till then they hoped for britain to assure independance and spent money to further industrialise the country), unfortunately in 1914 Belgium was in full reform and the fortresses around Liège and Antwerp still weren't finished yet thus seriously weakening the defence.

    Proud member of Clan Shades and the OOOO
    ---------------------
    The Belgian army is on the march May the Earth tremble with Beer... euh, Fear.

  3. #3
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default

    I do not believe WWI was inevitable. Preparations for war do not guarantee war.

    The Austrians and Russians are most to blame. Serbia accepted almost all of Austria's demands after the Archduke's murder, some of which were ridiculous. Austria should have let it go. When they didn't, the Tsar should have never mobilized. THAT was the biggest blunder. Of course, Nicky was the biggest boob of the lot. Compared to him even Willy looked like a scholar.

    Had Bismarck still been around the war would have been averted.
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  4. #4
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Had Bismarck still been around the war would have been averted.
    Bismark or a Bismarkian approach would never have let Russia slip into the French sphere.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  5. #5
    The Anger Shaman of the .Org Senior Member Voigtkampf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Holding the line...
    Posts
    2,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 06 2004,15:10)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Had Bismarck still been around the war would have been averted.
    Bismark or a Bismarkian approach would never have let Russia slip into the French sphere.
    Perhaps, but only theoretically… I believe there was no historical alternative to the developments that led to WW 1, especially that there were no obvious ways or means to bring German and Russians interests in harmony.




    Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.

    Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book

  6. #6

    Post

    Of course they were in accord prior to Bismarks abdiction.
    Russia and Germany did not have territorial or economical issues, in fact Germans always had been influential in the Russian market and government.
    The secret non-aggression treaty foolishly had not been renewed by the self-confident emperor and his new aides, forcing Russia to look for new partners west of Germany and the carefully planned system of treaties to ensure peace planned by Bismark fell apart and resulted in the isolation of the central European powers. A powderkeg was thusly created and the fuse was very short, considering the arrogance and high nationalism/imperialism attitude of the big European nations.
    In hindsight, this development is perhaps the worst in European history, because its peoples brought it up on themselves willingly and even eagerly so.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

  7. #7
    The Anger Shaman of the .Org Senior Member Voigtkampf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Holding the line...
    Posts
    2,745

    Default

    The Russian advance towards west had to lead to such hostilities eventually. It's a process that has been displayed for centuries, and can be easily reconstructed. The apt politician could have delayed that advance, but it would merely be a postponement of the inevitable.




    Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.

    Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book

  8. #8
    Member Member LordMonarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 07 2004,12:57)]The Russian advance towards west had to lead to such hostilities eventually. It's a process that has been displayed for centuries, and can be easily reconstructed. The apt politician could have delayed that advance, but it would merely be a postponement of the inevitable.
    Was it not an advance south, towards Turkey?

    One of the major problems was the miltary's influence on certain leaders [WILHELM] in certain countries.

  9. #9
    probably bored Member BDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Britain
    Posts
    5,508

    Default

    I don't think there was an aggressor, merely bloody stupid politicians. Idiots.

  10. #10
    The Anger Shaman of the .Org Senior Member Voigtkampf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Holding the line...
    Posts
    2,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (LordMonarch @ Jan. 07 2004,13:23)]Was it not an advance south, towards Turkey?
    Partially, yes, but I consider this one to be a "secondary" expansion, while the prime wave was directed to Europe. More than one historian agrees upon this one, but even so, I don't believe that the Turks were any less concerned with the Russian advance because of this.




    Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.

    Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book

  11. #11

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 07 2004,19:53)]Partially, yes, but I consider this one to be a "secondary" expansion, while the prime wave was directed to Europe. More than one historian agrees upon this one, but even so, I don't believe that the Turks were any less concerned with the Russian advance because of this.
    I don't know what historians you speak of or where that information comes from. During the time of the czars from after the Napoleonic era to the beginning of WWI, Russia didn't express much interest in expanding its territory in Europe, other than fighting Sweden for control of some of the Baltic coast and possibly minor border disputes with Poland. This can hardly be called a wave, just a necessity for a forming empire to have access to a larger amount of the baltic coast (trade&#33.
    Of course the Russian monarchy wanted to be accepted into the European rank of big powers, hence the good relationships with France (before Napoleon and some time after), Germany and the UK. Note that Germany was the closest power to Russia and they didn't wage a single war since the time of Frederick the Great. If Russia was bent on Western expansion, a war between Germany and Russia would have come about much much sooner than 1914.
    Of course Russian influence extends as far as the slavic population reaches into Europe, but Russia wasn't interested in annexing those countries but merely having some political influence there, especially the Balkans, as can be seen in the incidents around the murder of the Austro-Hungarian heir. The zones of influence of both Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans overlapped, that's where the main tension came from.

    The main push was indeed South, the Crimean War, Georgia etc. and East, the discovery of vast resources in Siberia and later on the clash with the emerging Japanese empire.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

  12. #12
    Saupreuss Member Stefan the Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Baal / Rhineprovince
    Posts
    964

    Default

    The main Cases of Germany beeing forced into WW1 were two:

    1. William II as an average Leader
    2. The Alliance with Austria

    When Bismarck went out of Office, also the Alliancepolicy died out. William II caused that Russia could fix an Alliance with France, so the Isolation of the French was ended. While Germany lost Russia as an Allie, William II also didn't search for new Alliances. The Japanese and even the USA* could have been possible Candidates, same affects Italy and Spain. There was nothing done to improove the Relationship with these Countries, also not any form of an attempt to calm down the French. The Empire went into the diffrent direction: Build a great Fleet, capture Colonies. The Result of that was that Britain begun to see Germany as a Rival.

    USA* -> The USA in that Times had grown to become a Worldpower itself, but they didn't have any Alliance in Europe nor any political Influence. A Visit of William II in the USA would be the first Visit of a European Leader at all and have caused large Sympathies. The British Press liked to print a Cartoon about their Relationship with the USA: A tall John Bull stands in front of small tiny Uncle Sam saying "What you Yankee noodle, strike your own Father???". Making Arrangements with the USA would have not directly resulted in an Alliance, but a good Relationship would at least have stopped Woodrow Wilson from attacking Germany. With some Efford, the USA could endeed have changed Sides.

  13. #13
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]
    don't know what historians you speak of or where that information comes from. During the time of the czars from after the Napoleonic era to the beginning of WWI, Russia didn't express much interest in expanding its territory in Europe, other than fighting Sweden for control of some of the Baltic coast and possibly minor border disputes with Poland. This can hardly be called a wave, just a necessity for a forming empire to have access to a larger amount of the baltic coast (trade.
    Please explain what wars between Russia and Sweden u refer to that happened after the Napoleonic era. To my knowledge Sweden has never been in a war after forcing Norway into the Union of 1814.

    And about the minor borderdisputes with Poland i doubt if the Polish people would call them minor. When ww1 started the "borderdisputes" had been solved since Poland didnt exist any longer. Poland came into being again after ww1 since all those that had "borderdisputes" with Poland got their asses kicked in the big war.

    Russian expansionism (as many other imperialistic countries) was aimed at all directions possible, west as much as south and east.

    Look at the result of ww1, where does Russia loose territory? Is it in the east? No. The south? No.

    Its in the west, they loose the areas they have been busy taking during several centuries so it is very possible to argue just as much for a western wave of expansionism as a southern or eastern as far as russia goes. (Personally id say Russian toppriority was west.)

    Kalle
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

  14. #14
    Isn't she pretty in pink? Member Rosacrux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    RTW sucks big time!
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Interesting thoughts about Germany and Russia here, I'll have to give them some thought to properly reply. But in the main opening post issue, my opinion is this:

    The Great War was pretty much inevitable, because it marked the end of the old era (the last remnants of the old-time royal houses, social structures etc) and because nationalism was at its peak and needed an expression throughout Europe.

    Too many nations without a land to call their own, too many undisputed differences, too many bills waiting to be paid, not to mention that the vigor and strength of the extremely prosperous military industry of Europe just had to be directed somewhere.

    Funny thing: WW1 was inevitable, but its outcome paved the road for WW2, making the next WW almost a necessity, to clear the mess the Great War has left.

    Not to mention that up until WW1, war was considered not a "great but occasionaly necessary evil" (as each and every civilized person in the western world considers it nowadays - save Shrubya and his PNAC groopies) but a perfectly legit and sound way to resolve national disputes.



    CHIEF HISTORIAN

  15. #15
    Member Member Tepes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    26

    Default

    I think that Austrians are the first to be blamed for the start of WW1. They imposed the Serbs almost impossible conditions after the murder of Franz Ferdinand and attacked them even if Serbia accepted to comply.
    The other nations follwed their political alliances. Personally, I think that without the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary, the WW1 would have been avoided at that time (even if it would have been only a delay of the inevitable).
    Veni, vidi, vici

  16. #16
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,985

    Default

    Although Austria was the real aggressor (not including the actual assasination). Russia's declaration of war is what really escalated it. Russia didn't have a formal alliance with Serbia, it's just because Russia felt it was the protector of the Slavic race that they should fight. If it hadn't been for Russia's escalation of the war from another Balkan conflict to a pan European War (because of Germany's alliance with Austria and because wars of ideology are just plain stupid) the Austrians would have invaded Serbia and been forced to do police duty due to the rebelious nature of the Balkans at the time.

    The nations responsible for the assasination, military agression, and escalation are the real nations to be blamed for WWI. The French and British involvement was completely unnessasery if it wasn't for the Russian involvement. The Russian involement wouldn't have been nessasery if it wasn't for the Austrian aggression and the Austrian aggression wouldn't have been nessasery if it wasn't for the assasination.

    I wonder if Russia would have been able to stop the communist party and the Red Army they didn't declare war on Austria.

    Oh, and funny isn't it how Germany was forced to accept responisbily for the entire war isn't it?




    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln


    Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
    Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
    Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
    Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

  17. #17
    Naughty Little Hippy Senior Member Tachikaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    3,417

    Default

    I see things in a very big picture. To me the World Wars were truly one war with a break in the middle. Secondly, they were the final deathrows of the Holy Roman and Ottoman Empires. The causes go way back, at least to Charles V or Charlemagne or even the fall of Rome, and include all surrounding cultures, even the 13th Century Mongols and various colonized peoples, in some way or another.

    Hell, historical events cannot be seen in isolated terms. It kind of makes finding causes for wars (or any other significant events) a complicated, perhaps impossible, effort.

    Certainly, trying to find causes of WWI only back to 1870 is very inconclusive and too narrowly focused to really explain anything satisfactorily.


    Screw luxury; resist convenience.

  18. #18
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Citera[/b] (Tachikaze @ Feb. 25 2004,01:17)]I see things in a very big picture. To me the World Wars were truly one war with a break in the middle. Secondly, they were the final deathrows of the Holy Roman and Ottoman Empires. The causes go way back, at least to Charles V or Charlemagne or even the fall of Rome, and include all surrounding cultures, even the 13th Century Mongols and various colonized peoples, in some way or another.

    Hell, historical events cannot be seen in isolated terms. It kind of makes finding causes for wars (or any other significant events) a complicated, perhaps impossible, effort.

    Certainly, trying to find causes of WWI only back to 1870 is very inconclusive and too narrowly focused to really explain anything satisfactorily.
    Good point
    And the guy that caused the WW1 was no other than Martin Luther or even Jesus
    Without Luther no 30-year war= no further decentralication of the HRE = The unification of Germany would probably happened earlier = No conflict in 1870 = No need for the WW1 in 1914.
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  19. #19

    Default

    [QUOTE=[b]Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ Jan. 06 2004,16:12)][quote=Pindar,Jan. 06 2004,15:10]
    Perhaps, but only theoretically… I believe there was no historical alternative to the developments that led to WW 1, especially that there were no obvious ways or means to bring German and Russians interests in harmony.
    There was - overthrowing the respective monarchies and asserting Democracy rather than Autocracy. This is a scenario that arises becuase the ruling classes of these nations operated on political principles forged during ghr medieval period and took no account of technical and political developements at the grass roots.

    Popular unrest against the war was high among the citizens of all belligerents, especially as as the terrible butchers bills came in. Popular unrest eventually brought the war to a close, with stikes and demos in England, Germany and France, of course the Russian Revolution, which immediately and unilaterally removed Russia from the conflict. Peace was brought about by popular will, and against the will of the kings, prime ministers and generals.

    And that is why we celebrate an Armistice, and not a victory.
    "We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong

  20. #20
    Member Member Crimson Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 06 2004,20:10)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Had Bismarck still been around the war would have been averted.
    Bismark or a Bismarkian approach would never have let Russia slip into the French sphere.
    Nor England. Bismarck would have opposed the building of the surface fleet of the Imperial German Navy - which was a heavy drain on Germany and diverted resources which could have been better spent elsewhere. The building of the new German fleet alarmed England and caused the British to ally with their old nemesis - France.



    _
    The more the words, the less the meaning and how does that benefit anyone? BIBLE: Ecclesiates 6:11

  21. #21
    Member Member Crimson Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 25 2004,10:18)]Popular unrest against the war was high among the citizens of all belligerents, especially as as the terrible butchers bills came in.
    You're wrong there. When the war started, there was widespread public support for it. Many, many young men were eager to enlist and join in the fight. Most people thought the war would be over by Christmas 1914. It was only when the war dragged on - and more people died - that public discontent set in, i.e 1915 onwards.
    _
    The more the words, the less the meaning and how does that benefit anyone? BIBLE: Ecclesiates 6:11

  22. #22

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Feb. 24 2004,19:32)]Please explain what wars between Russia and Sweden u refer to that happened after the Napoleonic era. To my knowledge Sweden has never been in a war after forcing Norway into the Union of 1814.

    And about the minor borderdisputes with Poland i doubt if the Polish people would call them minor. When ww1 started the "borderdisputes" had been solved since Poland didnt exist any longer. Poland came into being again after ww1 since all those that had "borderdisputes" with Poland got their asses kicked in the big war.

    Russian expansionism (as many other imperialistic countries) was aimed at all directions possible, west as much as south and east.

    Look at the result of ww1, where does Russia loose territory? Is it in the east? No. The south? No.

    Its in the west, they loose the areas they have been busy taking during several centuries so it is very possible to argue just as much for a western wave of expansionism as a southern or eastern as far as russia goes. (Personally id say Russian toppriority was west.)

    Kalle
    It was ill worded, Kalle. I was talking about the wars during and before the Napoleonic era, also Frederick the Great's time. The main point was that "expansion" was a strategy used by all emerging empires at that time, but the "expansion" to the west was concluded once Poland had been split between Austria, Germany and Russia.
    It's a very naive notion to think there was a clash brewing between Russia and Germany at that time, given the good relations between those two countries.
    The main field of interest for Russia was indeed South and and in the Balkans region, rather than further westward, while the German empire was "saturated" as well, thus, I cannot agree with your opinion.

    About Poland, there were indeed border disputes, however with Poland being weak at that time, especially after it lost the old Teutonic order areas again, the remainder was easily annexed by the Russians. This is not much worse than a weakened Poland leaning towards Russia for protection anyway. If you recall, there was also a time when the prince of Saxony was the King of Poland, thus foreign rule was nothing new to the Polish, but of course that doesn't mean they liked it, yet it is also open to discussion whether it affected daily life on noticable levels. Polish borders are hard to define because of century long struggle and settlement by different peoples.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 25 2004,06:26)]You're wrong there. When the war started, there was widespread public support for it. Many, many young men were eager to enlist and join in the fight. Most people thought the war would be over by Christmas 1914. It was only when the war dragged on - and more people died - that public discontent set in, i.e 1915 onwards.
    I don't think that contradicts my point; the RR was in 1917 and the war ended in 1918. I agree that much of the populace supported the war at first, on the same mistaken assumptions that the generals made; but the point is that singling out one of the regimes as worthy of blame is more or less pointless.
    "We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong

  24. #24
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Well here are a few steps in Russias western expansion.

    1703 - St Petersburgh is founded on Swedish land in the middle of the Great northern war. It is the new capitol of russia and the location of it serves as a symbol of russias strive to go west.

    1721 - The peace of Nystad giving Russia the Swedish provinces of Estonia, Livland, Ingermanland and eastern Karelia.

    1743 - The peace of Åbo giving russia parts of southeastern Finland.

    1809 - The peace of Fredrikshamn giving Russia the rest of Finland and the large Island of Åland.

    All of the above at the expense of Sweden. After 1809 there is no more war between Russia and Sweden but Sweden lives in constant and real danger from then on, (off the topic this explains why sweden often are germanfriendly in their policy since they consider the threat coming from the east, up until the fall of the soviet union all preparations for war was aimed at Russia not the west eventhough claming to be neutral)

    Add to this the partitions of Poland and the conflict with Austria-Hungary over Balkan and i think its very fair to speak of a western main direction of expansionsm. The balkans is as i see it a move westwards more then south especially since russia is well aware that this will mean conflict with Austria - Hungary.

    Of course the drive west cannot be done with the same speed as the colonization of the vast areas in the east (siberia and so on) since the competition is much harder and they often face militarised states - sweden in the 17th and 18th centuries and later on prussia and germany.

    [/QUOTE]
    About Poland, there were indeed border disputes, however with Poland being weak at that time, especially after it lost the old Teutonic order areas again, the remainder was easily annexed by the Russians. This is not much worse than a weakened Poland leaning towards Russia for protection anyway. If you recall, there was also a time when the prince of Saxony was the King of Poland, thus foreign rule was nothing new to the Polish, but of course that doesn't mean they liked it, yet it is also open to discussion whether it affected daily life on noticable levels. Polish borders are hard to define because of century long struggle and settlement by different peoples.
    [QUOTE]

    Hm, this needs some more explaining i think. U saying its ok for powerful countries to annex week ones? Or that Poland was ok with being divided by their powerful neighbours?

    And yes i recall the "Kurfurste" of Sachsen being elected king of Poland after some internal polish warfare. This (if we speak of same thing) was late 17th early 18th century, i know this episode very well since this king (August the strong) was one of the aggressors against Sweden in the great northern war. Typical for polish politics at the time he was not liked by all the nobility and had to fight some wars to be made king by the elections held by the nobles. The problem with polish policy (thus the expression "polsk riksdag" - "polish reichstag or parliament") was that all the nobles had to agree and they practically never did which explains why the big country went downward in their competition with centralized states such as Sweden. But saying the making of August as king make the Polish used to foregin rule is not wise i think. Its not the same thing to elect a king and to be annexed by other nations. Poland was not a province of Sachsen but when split by Russia, Germany and Austria it became provinces.


    In fact i think its fair to say that August was made king because the polish nobility thought it would ensure their rights to rule their areas the way they liked, he was a week king with small support and was crushed by the Swedes. His title as Polish king was not much more then a title.

    In this issue it does not matter if polish people lived better under the russian tsars or the old nobility of their own country what matters is that the partition of Poland was part of russias westward expansion.

    Prolly our diffrence of opinion is a diffrence of opinion about the balkans, is it west or south? Lets call it southwest

    Kalle
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member BlackWatch McKenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    So.Cal.
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Woot?

    This is right up my alley. Off the top of my head:

    (1) Kurfurst of Saxony a.k.a. (Frederick William the son of August the Strong) was backed as King of Poland by France/Austria/Russia in and around 1756. He sided with the three Big Ladies in that war (with aims on partitioning Prussia amongst those four plus Sweden getting a piece, too.).

    Frederick moved into Saxony and sent August off to Poland.

    (2) Add to the list: Partition of Poland circa 1772 occurred when....the three previous enemies (Fritz and the two big ladies) decided that if THEY didn't mind splitting up Poland, that no one else certainly would mind. Frederick William died in 1763 and when Kings die (naturally or otherwise), lands get partioned.

    //BW
    // Black

    // "Did we win?"

  26. #26

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Feb. 26 2004,17:08)]Well here are a few steps in Russias western expansion.

    1703 - St Petersburgh is founded on Swedish land in the middle of the Great northern war. It is the new capitol of russia and the location of it serves as a symbol of russias strive to go west.

    1721 - The peace of Nystad giving Russia the Swedish provinces of Estonia, Livland, Ingermanland and eastern Karelia.

    1743 - The peace of Åbo giving russia parts of southeastern Finland.

    1809 - The peace of Fredrikshamn giving Russia the rest of Finland and the large Island of Åland.

    All of the above at the expense of Sweden. After 1809 there is no more war between Russia and Sweden but Sweden lives in constant and real danger from then on, (off the topic this explains why sweden often are germanfriendly in their policy since they consider the threat coming from the east, up until the fall of the soviet union all preparations for war was aimed at Russia not the west eventhough claming to be neutral)

    Add to this the partitions of Poland and the conflict with Austria-Hungary over Balkan and i think its very fair to speak of a western main direction of expansionsm. The balkans is as i see it a move westwards more then south especially since russia is well aware that this will mean conflict with Austria - Hungary.

    Of course the drive west cannot be done with the same speed as the colonization of the vast areas in the east (siberia and so on) since the competition is much harder and they often face militarised states - sweden in the 17th and 18th centuries and later on prussia and germany.
    So, of course expansion is normal for any empire, ask yourself why the areas around St. Petersburg actually were Swedish..simply because the Swedes took that land, not because it belonged to them from the beginning.
    Same goes for other areas on the Baltic coast, they've been gained through expansion.
    I said in an earlier post that expansion to gain access to the Baltic coast was understandable for a forming empire, the whole war between Russia and Sweden just resulted in a changing of the guard. Sweden said goodbye to being an influential power and Russia's reign began. Of course this is westward expansion, but my point was that it was for a specific goal and once that had been reached, there was no more need to expand westward. It would have resulted in a clash that wasn't desired nor could have been won at that time.
    I like to think that Russia indeed had no interest on actually expanding into the Balkans but rather have influence on the governments of the Slavic countries in this region so they serve as some kind of buffer between them and Austria-Hungary, which sought influence in the same area. Poland and Russia is a whole different chapter of long dispute and animosities.
    Then, of course we have different opinions on what West or South is.. The Balkans are southwest of Russia, agreed, but nobody would consider it to be west, West is associated with central and Western Europe, respectively. And in my opinion, besides the formative phase, there was no further push west planned.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]
    About Poland, there were indeed border disputes, however with Poland being weak at that time, especially after it lost the old Teutonic order areas again, the remainder was easily annexed by the Russians. This is not much worse than a weakened Poland leaning towards Russia for protection anyway. If you recall, there was also a time when the prince of Saxony was the King of Poland, thus foreign rule was nothing new to the Polish, but of course that doesn't mean they liked it, yet it is also open to discussion whether it affected daily life on noticable levels. Polish borders are hard to define because of century long struggle and settlement by different peoples.

    Hm, this needs some more explaining i think. U saying its ok for powerful countries to annex week ones? Or that Poland was ok with being divided by their powerful neighbours?

    And yes i recall the "Kurfurste" of Sachsen being elected king of Poland after some internal polish warfare. This (if we speak of same thing) was late 17th early 18th century, i know this episode very well since this king (August the strong) was one of the aggressors against Sweden in the great northern war. Typical for polish politics at the time he was not liked by all the nobility and had to fight some wars to be made king by the elections held by the nobles. The problem with polish policy (thus the expression "polsk riksdag" - "polish reichstag or parliament") was that all the nobles had to agree and they practically never did which explains why the big country went downward in their competition with centralized states such as Sweden. But saying the making of August as king make the Polish used to foregin rule is not wise i think. Its not the same thing to elect a king and to be annexed by other nations. Poland was not a province of Sachsen but when split by Russia, Germany and Austria it became provinces.


    In fact I think its fair to say that August was made king because the polish nobility thought it would ensure their rights to rule their areas the way they liked, he was a week king with small support and was crushed by the Swedes. His title as Polish king was not much more then a title.

    In this issue it does not matter if polish people lived better under the russian tsars or the old nobility of their own country what matters is that the partition of Poland was part of russias westward expansion.
    Actually, I think it's ok for those countries, but it doesn't mean I think it's ok. The point was that I theorised that if no division of Poland would have taken place, we would have seen it occur nevertheless, just in another shape. And Poland has had foreign rulers quite often in its history, so I think one could cautiously say she was definitely used to that. The Piasts
    were actually of Nordic descent, IIRC. And why? Exactly as you stated, because of the weakness of the "parliament" and the general infrastructure still stuck in the middle ages.
    And yes, it was part of the expansion, but, you know it was part of the greater struggle in which Sweden was not exactly impartial. Katharina II set up a King of her liking in Poland in the same manner as August became king earlier, because of the same weakness we noted before, it was not exactly planned to invade Poland, but Prussia and Austria had the idea that a division might have its benefits for all involved (except for Poland itself on a national level, of course), thus, aquisition of parts of Poland was only some sort of "bonus" that resulted from the political situation at that time.
    The push to the west cannot be denied, but it was no long term policy of getting more and more foreign territory to the west, but rather to connect themselves to the Balticum and bring themselves closer to Europe, as the czars felt they were an European power and sought recognition as such.
    would rather call it a push to the coast.
    Once they had what they wanted, they stopped and focused on other territories and cosolidating what they've aquired, instead of thinking about moving on to the west, as one poster claimed.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO