 |
| |
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:22
|
|
Obviously most of you aren't trained historians.
The historical argument is pretty much dead for about 30 years although it fizzles on a bit. Germany was responsible. Our thanks to German Professor Fritz Fischer for pretty much settling the argument with his exhaustive research of the German archives.
quote:
No Consensus Yet on the
Origins of the Great War
By Rob Ruggenberg
Don't be fooled: there is no such thing as an historical consensus on the origins of the Great War. But there is something coming close to it.
This happened before. In the past historians also almost reached a sort of mutual agreement on a revisionist interpretation which developed in the 1920's. Many years and thousands of studies later this interpretation is now, slowly, giving way for a new one.
This older view held that the war was the result of a conflict between imperialist states. It was preceded by a naval race, a great increase in armaments and rivalry between world empires for control of markets.
There was, it was argued, little to choose between the policies of the great powers. War broke out because everyone misjudged the consequences of the crisis created by the assassination of the Austrian Arch-Duke in Sarajevo.
In this version Austria-Hungary, for its unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia, and France and Russia, for their hasty decisions to mobilize, were judged to be the powers most responsible for starting the war. Germany and Britain attempted to find a compromise but were drawn into a conflict which neither imagined would last more than a few months.
Challenged
This view of the origins of the war was challenged by the German historian Fritz Fischer. To the chagrin of other German intellectuals, who preferred the theory that the other countries involved in World War I were at fault, Fischer's concluded that the Germans under the Kaiser had expansionist goals in the war. Writing in the 1960's, in the aftermath of the Second World War, Fischer argued that leading groups in Germany - including the Kaiser - sought a war which would establish German control over much of Europe.
Germany, Fischer insisted in his book "Griff nach der Weltmacht (Grab at Worldpower, translated as "Germany's Aims in World War I"), deliberately encouraged the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to declare war on Serbia and actively sought war with France, hoping to repeat the victory of 1870, before dealing with Russia. Britain's small army could be ignored because the decisive engagements would be over within a few months.
Fischer based his material on the so called September plans and pointed out that there was a continuancy in German planning. His book was called Griff nach der Weltmacht (Grab at Worldpower).
His view of the origins of the Great War has not gone unchallenged. His most important opponents were Zara Steiner and Luigi Albertine. They made Fischer's book the subject of numerous discussions over the years, with Fischer sticking to his conclusions , even as Steiner and Albertine (and others) claimed he took historical quotes out of context.
Today many historians would agree with the general outlines of the Fischer thesis. Fischer died in December 1999, 91 years old (other books he wrote were "War of Illusions" in 1969 and "Hitler was Not an Accident" in 1992.)
Ironic...
Canadian leading military historian prof. Terry Copp, who wrote most of the summary above, adds that this 'new consensus' must seem ironic to allied First World War veterans, ,,...because it presents the origins of the war much as the people of 1914 understood them."
|
The scary part is Fischer shows that Imperial Germany's aims in WWI weren't much different from Hitler's in WWII. WWII was really a continuation of WWI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This was a family fight. If you look it up, you will find that most of the European heads of state were related to Queen Victoria of England. (Grandsons and Great-grandsons)
Someone in the family should have said we are having a family reunion and see if we can stop this fighting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Timexwatch
While I'm on the subject, the Kaiser didn't help any. Wilhelm was, by all accounts, not all that bright, weak in resolve, and (this is for Boris Gudonov) rumored to be quite gay. He had eratic mood swings and failed to take diplomacy seriously. |
There was never any serious suspicious that Wilhelm was gay. What happened was the the German Social Democrats used their party newspaper tp accuse Germany's wealthiest industrialist, Alfred Krupp, of having sex with young men in Capri (partly as a tactic to force the repeal of Paragraph 175, the German law against homosexual acts). Krupp ended up committing suicide, and the Kaiser decried it as "intellectual murder," as Krupp was a friend of his.
Anyway, it started a period where the most common political smear tactic was to accuse opponents of being homosexual. The scandals came to head beginning in 1905, when the Kaiser's best friend, Phillip zu Eulenberg, was accused of being a homosexual by a recently-dismissed Counselor of the Kaiser, von Holstein. Eulenberg had long been a pacifist, and Holstein a military hawk, so Holstein believed Eulenberg responsible for his dismissal. Holstein got a political ally who ran a newspaper to publish a charge that Eulenberg was the lover of General von Moltke, the commandant of Berlin. In the meantime, an extremist gay activist named Brand also accused the German Chancellor of having an affair with his male secretary.
The accusations resulted in several libel suits. Moltke, after an initial acquittal of his case, won his libel suit against the newspaper owner, who spent 4 months in jail. Brand was also found guilty of libel and served 6 months. Then Eulenberg, oddly enough, was charged with perjury. However, he fell ill during the trial, which was postponed several times, for years, until Eulenberg finally died.
During all this, the Kaiser had a nervous collapse. He never believed the accusations, but his court was permanently disrupted by the matter. There is some speculation that the disruption was successful in pushing Wilhelm away from the moderates like Eulenberg and towards the war hawks who wanted war with France.
Regardless, there was never any accusation Wilhelm himself was homosexual, nor is their any historical evidence to support it. Eulenberg and Moltke, however, most likely were.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-09-2002 06:01
).
|