[QUOTE]Thank you - that's much better

So did Germany on behalf of GB, Russia and France. But again were or against who did Germany forward a military agression or press demands by threatening with war without being forced or having been threatend on its own interest by others?

Great example, if GB had signed that, Russia and France would not have been able to play balls with Germany, and the likelyness of a WWI could have been evaded.

,

Figures are never meaningless - especially not those.

You are forgetting that Britain did not alone cover those costs - but their colonies paid as well - or did Australia, NZ, Canada etc. just send their bills to GB?

Not true, the naval spendings of GB had been on equal sums from 1900 - 1913 - there is no significant increase in their spendings that would support your claims to GB having to "go on a massive ship building program in response to Prussia's attempts"

This does not alter the fact, that the military of Russia, France and GB was 4 times that of Germany.

Also the Kaiser refered to this upon GB deployment of those troops to France in 1914 and not before in conjunction to an evaluation of GB military strenght.

Sorry therefore this source is totally irellevant to the above topic of 1900-1913.

Quote:

Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley (Part 5: The First World War: 1914 - 1918)

Now if you would have acknowledged or "read" this source earlier on we could have spared out the entire debate - since it is obvious that the WWI was due to diplomatical entanglement and the main culprits were

France - GreatBritain - Prussia and Russia

So my forwarding that GB was one of the main culprits is absolutly correct.

Sorry no, it is not hyprocritical but anticipative - I am aware how these discussion usually go on - asking for sources with not bringing up oneself and then trying to dismantle other peoples sources with mostly irrational or biased opinions.

Almost every argument I have forwarded in this discussion is backed by dates and information that can be looked up easily by "copy - paste" into google for example in order to check on sources.

Try: copy - paste the below remarks into google

1887 Merchandise marks act

In January 1907 Sir Eyre Crowe -Foreign department notes

In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS

And so on and so on.


Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

[QUOTE=Kruska;402471]Unlikely. Its probable that any agreement like this would encourage Prussian willingness to resort to military means to deal with the threat of Russia and France.
,
Never heard of the saying " Lies, damn lies, and statistics"


These were dominions and largely self governing, it was the colonies like India and Africa that cost the War Office. The British got their money back through trade and exploitation of resources, but the costs did show up on the figures for total military expenditure that you provided

According to the RN they did
Sea Your History - 1900: Surface Fleet


In what way cost? numbers?, and I notice you are leaving Austria-Hungary, and Turkey out of the comparison.

The strength of the British Army in Europe in this period is hardly irrelevant.

Name any diplomatic entanglement that committed Britain to ally themselves to France and Russia in any war with Prussia in mainland Europe.

So Prussia's provoking of Britain with a naval race and the invasion of neutral Belgium weren't the major reasons for Britain's involvement then ?

If a person asks for sources rudeness is not an option.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Again I will ask you to forward an occasion where Prussia forwarded military aggression to deal with France and Russia from 1900 to 1913.

Sometimes maybe true but not always. Britain even reduced its naval spendings between 1900 - 1913

British Naval Policy - 1890-1920

Quote:
Total expenditure from naval votes had been brought down from a maximum of £36,860,000 in 1904-05 to £31,419,000 in 1907-8. After four years of declining naval expenditure provided for in Navy Estimates, Parliament was asked in April 1908 to vote 900,000 more for the coming year than for its predecessor. The provision for new construction in 1908-9 exclusive of armaments amounts to £7,545,OOO, and was less than the corresponding provision made during any previous year in this century. In 1907-8 it was £ 8,100,000; in 1904-5 it exceeded £ll millions, largely in consequence of the purchase of two Chilian battleships ; the previous range since 1901-2 had been between these two years. This drop in new construction — coming immediately after the revision of the German naval program with its largely increased expenditure — naturally gave rise to considerable discussion.

The threat of Russia, France and GB towards Prussia, is what caused the alliance with Austria- Hungaria and Turkey and the Kaisers stupidity to neglect Russia as an alliance partner in contra to Bismarks dissaproval of Austria.

I never stated that the strenght was irrelevant - in contra, but the comment that you cited on behalf of the Kaiser upon GB sending its expeditionary force is irrelevant.

I already did:

In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS.......

Belgium was in 1914 - we are not discussing this occurence - that Britain took Prussias invasion of Belgium as a reason to declare war on Germany is known. However the 1911 agreement of GB towards France nullifies this reason anyway.

British understatement eh? what makes you so sure that Prussia provoked GB and not the other way around.

Quote:
The Liberal and Radical press in England, taking up Prince Bullow's statement that Germany thought as little of challenging British maritime supremacy as of building a railway to the moon, began a strenuous campaign for a limitation of armaments. The movement reached its height when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal Prime Minister, published an article in the first issue of the Nation (London), a new Radical weekly, in which he invited Germany to discuss the whole problem; only to encounter an obstinate refusal from Prince Bullow.

The Marocco crisis showed very clearly that it was GB that sided with its previous enemies/rivals France and Russia in order to press issues against Prussia.

British Naval Policy - 1890-1920

In March 1905, Kaiser Wilhelm visited Tangiers in Morocco and gave a speech in which he promised to defend Morocco as 'free and independent ‘ and ‘subject to no foreign control'. The French (fearful of another war with Germany) were going to back down, but the British [fearful of a German naval presence in Morroco] encouraged them to take a firm line. This First Moroccan Crisis of 1905 was finally adjusted by the Algeciras Conference in 1906. France, Britain, and Russia forced Germany to promise to stay out of Morocco. Germany felt humiliated.

You are blind to the fact that it was the British who caused the naval arnsrace in the first place and not Prussia. It was GB who entered the armsrace to counter France and Russia and not Prussia

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-rn-policy2.htm

In 1888-9, the Conservative administration of the Marquess of Salisbury was in power, and Lord George Hamilton was First Lord of the Admiralty. At that time, the demand for the two-power standard was first formulated, meaning thereby that England at all times must remain navally strong enough to bid defiance to her (at that time) strongest rivals, France and Russia, the Powers of the Dual Alliance. This demand, then only in the mouth of English naval experts, had now become a national shibboleth, and every cabinet since, no matter what its other creed, has practically lived up to this program. In 1889 there advened, under strong public pressure, the passage of the Naval Defense Act, which enabled the British Admiralty to begin the five years' program of shipbuilding, with the immediate construction of 10 large battleships, 42 cruisers, and 18 torpedo destroyers.

The armsrace of GB Naval Defence Act 1889, caused other countries to draw up to the British naval power.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-rn-policy2.htm

England's navy had not only attained the two-power standard, but considerably exceeded it. At that time, England was twice as strong navally as France, and more than thrice as strong as Russia, while she had at least quadrupled the strength of any of the minor sea powers, Germany and the United States included. Within the short time since, however, a change was wrought in the situation, a change which comprises above all a new grouping of naval powers.

In 1898, Germany, the United States, and Russia decided simultaneously on radical naval measures, especially on increases so large and for such long periods in advance as to alter the complexion of the whole very materially. France followed two years later with a similar plan of increase. The Russian plan contemplated the construction of eight large battleships, ten small cruisers, and thirty torpedo destroyers, they costing altogether about $100,000,000.

How come GB wasn't aware about those other countries e.g. the USA to pose a military threat and agression towards GB interests??? how come GB whole history interpretation gets focused entirely on Prussia despite Prussia not threatening anyone militarily in Europe or outside. All colonial issues with France and GB were settled diplomatically without Prussia using military force.

The US used military force in Cuba, Honduras, Philipines etc. to rid a previous colonial power of its colonies - which Prussia never did.

The whole thing with you Brits is that the vast majority of you guys just can't face the fact that Britain would not tollerate anyone to rival its strenght - especially not Prussia. Therefore all the blame is set against Prussia by simply denying GB own hegemonial interests.

WWI and the fact that Germany was defeated led to the distortion of history by GB, France, USA and Russia.
By simply placing the blame and cause of WWI solely onto the Germans.

Sorry no, it is not hyprocritical or rude but anticipative - I am aware how these discussion usually go on - asking for sources with not bringing up oneself and then trying to dismantle other peoples sources with mostly irrational or biased opinions.

If Drucius, feels that I gave a rude answer - I have no problem to reason with him or to appologize - but I will let Drucius judge on this and not you on his behalf.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Nice article on the Anglo-German Naval race
The Great Naval Race (Peter Padfield)


"The decision for war against the three world empires of France, Russia and Britain was taken by a tiny handful of men [in Berlin] who seem to have had hardly any idea of the shattering consequences that their decision would have for Germany, for Europe and for the world down to the present day."
- John Rohl, "The Kaiser and his Court"

On the claim that Britain started the arms race
http://www.ssi.unitn.it/en/download/WP032006Keefer.pdf


Not True. The Austro-Hungarians deserve their share of the blame as well

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Peter Padfield is convinced that the official cover-up on Hess's flight to Great Britain in May 1941 continues to this day since the peace proposals Hess undoubtedly brought with him to present to the Duke of Hamilton for the British 'peace party' in which he had been led to believe have never been released, nor has their existence been admitted; indeed very obvious attempts have been made to delete all record of these papers.

I would rather take Peter Padfield as an historian of personal interpretation. He also is a "historian" when it comes to Doenitz, Himmler and Hess.

Like I said:

You are blind to the fact that it was the British who caused the naval arnsrace in the first place and not Prussia.

The whole thing with you Brits is that the vast majority of you guys just can't face the fact that Britain would not tollerate anyone to rival its strenght - especially not Prussia. Therefore all the blame is set against Prussia by simply denying GB own hegemonial interests.
- see the British Prof John Rohl.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

No. Prussia engaging in an naval race turned a potential ally into a potential foe, but it didn't cause the war

Britain didn't force Prussia to declare war on Russia and France, and invade two neutral nations.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

I see, so the armsrace of GB Naval Defence Act 1889 pointed towards France and Russia was okay.
That due to this in 1898, Germany, the United States, Russia and later France decided simultaneously on radical naval measures is also okay - but not for Prussia, I see

And the Merchandising act was a realistic and friendly guesture towards Prussia to become allies, I see.

I never said or proclaimed that, -so why do you resort to irrational and incorrect accusations ?

What I forwarded was that In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS....... which allowed France and Russia to play balls with Prussia.

BTW it is about 0300 in Britain - so have a good rest and let's argue - ah... see you tomorrow.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

(To the OP) Where do you honestly think civilization would be now without WC?

While the USA was seen as a threat to British interests, it was never seen as a direct threat to Britain itself, because unlike Germany, it never threatened Britain’s naval dominance around her own shores
The evidence is there in the sources we have both produced that the Germany built up their navy to the second largest in the world in order to put pressure on Britain to seek an accommodation (which favoured Germany) with them. It seems to have never occurred to the German leadership that this threat might force Britain to seek other allies in Europe who were also opposed to German domination of Europe instead.

RedcoatBecause this gets to the heart of British involvement in 1914, if Germany had not been seen as the aggressor with the declaration on war against both France and Russia and the invasion of Belgium, its probable that Britain would have remained neutral, despite the unofficial agreements Britain had with France
History Today - Germany, Britain & the Coming of War in 1914 : Richard Wilkinson explains what went wrong in Anglo-German relations before the First World War.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

From The Sidelines

What a Battle of the Giants..and I dont mean Great Britain and Prussia.

Absolutely fascinating and so well researched. Directly opposing views but each point is traded punch for punch and all according to The Queensbury Rules.

Great Stuff and I'm learning tons.

regards..richardS

You are absolutly correct, - actually Prussia was for some strange reason missled to believe that a strong Prussian navy would present themselves as an attractive partner to GB global interests. At the same time they (Prussia) did not want to give in, just as GB didn't want to loose its present power or position. Therefore Britain saw its interests rightfully being threatened by Prussia, whereas Prussia thought of Britain to be the obstruction to its rightfull place amongst the leading nations.

Prussias aim was not to level or advance above Britain but to press issues against France and Russia. Britain however was taking into account that sooner or later Prussia might press its issues against Britain as well, and as such viewing upon the Kaisers naval/military ambitions as a thread to herself.

Unfortunatly for Britain and Prussia the Kaiser was quite an uncompromising and unskillfull character in diplomatic matters (probably from mothers side ), whereas Churchill/Tirpitz weren't giving in characters either. (so if one knocks two stones together sparks will fly and sooner or later one of the stones will break first)

The British analysed the Prussian naval units and somehow received the impression that the Prussian navy was poised to counter "exclusively" British naval forces. Whereas the Prussians wrongly thought of using that naval force as a added "argument" to press their interests against mainly France.

Correct again, but Prussia had no other choice but to advance through Belgium and Luxemburg in order to gain the advantage against France, since Russia had already mobilized and Prussia's (the Kaiser personally - see Nicky kletters) diplomatic mission failed.
It is interesting to note that the Russian CoS had admitted later on, that Russia was already poised for war against Prussia before the Prussian declaration of war against Serbia.

So in conclusion:

Britain and Prussia were unwilling/unable to compromise, and thus allowed France and Russia to play balls, the assassination of the Austrian Archduke was just the welcomed reason to start of the war that was needed to set things straight between Russia, France and Prussia.

Britain was in the position to "choose" sides that would enable her to maintain its leadership role. Due to the fact that Britain interpreted itself being mainly threatened by Prussia convinced her to choose sides most suitable to her interest.

And as such a war was unavoidable, however to my believe the British choosing the Entente as its assurance made it become a WW in 1914 - if a neutral Britain might have been the victim of Prussian determination to dominate later on is not certain but can't be outruled.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Nice post Kruska
While there are still some areas of disagreement I think we've reached common ground on the main issues

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Hello redcoat,

don't worry mate, our English and Scottish friends me and a common German friend are still in dissagreement about this topic on certain issues since our schooltimes.
One Scotts guy was sucessfully indoctrinated ahh.. convienced to share our point of view , but sometimes he tends to forward objections

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

The original question was.....Was he overated? The facts of 1940 speak for themselves and anser the questiion.

He led his people off their knees to their survival. Many have cause to thank his existance.

No matter how interesting this thread may be....what histoical or hysterical in some cases, lessons we see espoused on here....No measly mouthed words can harm him now, if only some espousing the words were or could be a fraction of the man then they would be worth listening to.

Population of Germany 1910 = 64.9m
Population of UK 1911 = 45.4m

Germany is clearly spending far more than the UK on their army and slightly less on their navy. You appear to have shot yourself in the foot, old chum.

Pretending that Germany had no warlike intentions in 1914 is disingenuousness taken to ludicrous extremes.

In general terms the dreadnaughts are irrelevant, Britain entered the war because Germany invaded Belgium and we had a duty to protect Belgium.

Ladies and Gentelmen:

Herman Goering was adding to his beloved Karen Hall while the German 6th (sixth) Army was on a starvation diet. He had promised Hitler that the Luftwaffe would deliver all the supplies that the Sixth Army would need.

He then promptly told the Lutwaffe to support the North African operation and lost over 50 of his heavy transport aircraft. This not speak of minding the objective. If was high on booze and drugs why was he not removed?

As Ever,

Walter L. Marlowe

Airborne all the Way)

Hello Drucius,

not at all old chum. Germany's territory size (not taking the colonies into account) was about 2 times that of GB without its colonies. Germany's population as you already noted was about 50% above GB. Furthermore Germany is not an Island but is bordered directly to its maybe enemies. That therefore the spendings on the Armed Forces are off course greater in their sum is logical and necessary. The economic and political balance of a country is measured in per/capita and not in total sums. As such GB and Germany allocated their national budget in balance to each others interests.

Plus that not a single German colony stood up finacially for its own defense such as Canada, NZ, Aus, India, etc. and that in total contrast to GB and France, Germany could not request or be given millitary support by its colonies in the event of a war.

Germany during the cold war maintained by far the largest Armed forces in NATO after the USA, also the 2nd highest defense Budget within NATO. Therfore to your logic it would be okay for the former Soviet Union to forward - Germany above all other European NATO members was preparing to attack.

Yes we know that side of the story, and Russia had mobilized and refused to demobilize, and the Kaiser had the duty to protect Germany

Pretending that Russia, France, Austria and Italy had no warlike intentions in 1914 and that GB would stay neutral in the event of a war is disingenuousness taken to ludicrous extremes.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

So you concede that your figures "proving" that "The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army. The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy" are rubbish and in fact prove the very opposite? That seems fair.


Presumably you're unaware that the British Army was posted in many places across the world in order to protect British intrests? Part of the British Army's job was to police the Empire just as much as it was part of the Heers. I don't know why you bring up the colonies, Germany was getting plenty of help from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to make up for any shortfall.

Germany during the cold war didn't exist. East Germany possibly was preparing to attack, West Germany certainly wasn't so we'll never know for sure. Have you any other misleading irrellevances left? Let's get them all over with at once, please.


What exactly has this to do with the UKs entry into the Great War and Churchill? Russia mobilized because Germany's stooge, Austria, invaded Serbia.

See what happens when you start wars? Often ends in tears.

Not as much as pretending that those countries should take no interest in what happens to neighbouring countries, chummy.

Hello Kruska
I turn my back for a minute and you start causing trouble again
That the Kaiser had to mobilise his forces due to the emergency with Russia and A-H over Serbia is fair enough, but that shouldn't have lead to war, as these telegrams the Tsar sent to the Kaiser show.
This is a message the Tsar sent to Willie on Russia’s mobilisation;
On receipt from Willie of a telegram stating Germany would also have to mobilise, the Tsar responded by asking for;
The problem was Germany had only the one plan in event of war breaking out between any of the major players in the two power blocks, the Schlieffen Plan, and that plan required that Germany attacked first, so any mobilisation by either Russia and France would lead to war, even though France or Russia were unaware of this fact.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Hello redcoat, licking your paws on some maybe dispute?

Fair enough on your account - however the Zar was already in the hands of the Russian military - please see my previous post in regards to the Russian CoS or my below reply to Drucius.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

try and read again - maybe next time you get it right

In contra to you I know the difference between a colony or crown colony and an independent Empire such as Austro-Hungaria. Check a KIA list in regards to Britains losses during WWI and you might understand who got killed on behalf and besides the British.

If I got the numbers about right - there were about 90,000 Brits and colonials fighting against 4000 Germans and their colonials in German-East-Afrika (todays Tansania). BTW the Brits didn't win.

Just replace Germany with the term West-Germany if that makes it easier for you to follow - the content of the comparrison stays the same.

That Britain got into a war on behalf of another nation's souveranity (according to British history) whilst Germany has no problem at all to face the fact that it got into a war to protect and defend its own interests. The postings that you are following in between redcoat and me have nothing to do with the rating thread of Winston Churchill. Haven't you noticed??

Exactly, see how many British and their colonials died for 'supposedly" defending solely Belgium neutrality. Britain declared war on Germany -chummy - not the other way around.

This is how wars get started old chummy. (taking interest in other countries) India or its Maharanis never declared war on Britain, but somehow Britain got interested in India, North America, South America, Caribbien, Africa, Australia, Afgahnistan, Malaysia, Burma, China, Indonesia, etc. etc. and GB couldn't be bothered about the souveranity of those states involved plus meddeling in Continental Europe, which to you seems to be totally allright but not for others hmm?

I believe that the English language terms this as Hipocracy

Germany was in alliance with Austria - Austria was in quarrels with Serbia - Russia was in alliance with Serbia you can follow so far?

Serbian terrorists murder the archduke of Austria - Austria has solid reasons to believe that the Serbian government is behind this. Austria however can't punish Serbia without risking Russian interference - therefore the Kaiser tells them "No matter what - I will stand to my alliance and respect an independent souverain nation in its rights"

Just as GB later did in regards to Belgium!!!

Austria declares war on Serbia - Russia mobilizes - the Kaiser begs the Zar to demobilize - the Zar doesn't - Germany declares war on Russia - Russian troops enter East Prussia the following day.

Now I find it extremly interesting that the Germans who "according to some people and historians" wanted the war, were not ready to do so, but the Russians were able to attack first. even the French Army AFAIK opened up hostillities first.

Now the Russian CoS admitted later on that the Zar could not have demobilized anyway - since the Russian military had already decided on the 25th of July to attack Germany.

The red marked expressions and wordings are the typical example of a certain British posting / discussion style, which I have no problem with to hurl back.

Now go and exersise on your bagpipes whilst I will be clapping on my Lederhosen

(German posting style upon receiving a certain British postingstyle)

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Hello Kruska.
The French army didn't open up hostillities on the Western front, the Germany army did with its attack on Belguim (3rd August) and the battle of Leige on the 5th August ,the French offensive didn't start until the 7th.
First World War.com - Battles - The Battle of Liege, 1914
First World War.com - Battles - The Battle of Mulhouse, 1914

Also, the date I have for Russian forces entering East Prussia is the 12th August with some cavalry, followed by the main force on the 17th.
First World War.com - Battles - The Battle of Stalluponen, 1914

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Hello redcoat,

Berlin, 2. Aug. source; Frankfurter Zeitung
Eine französische Abteilung hat bei dem elsässischen Orte Reppe die deutsche Grenze überschritten. Damit steht fest, daß Frankreich ebenso wie Rußland uns ohne Kriegserklärung angegriffen hat. 2)

Berlin, 2. Aug.
A French detatchment has crossed the German border near the village of Reppe in Alsacce. Therefore it is for certain that France as well as Russia have attacked us without a declaration of war.

Berlin, 3. Aug. (W. B. Amtliche Mitteilung.)
Bisher haben deutsche Truppen dem erteilten Befehle gemäß, die französische Grenze nicht überschritten. Dagegen greifen seit gestern französische Truppen ohne Kriegserklärung unsere Grenzposten an. Sie haben, obwohl uns die französische Regierung noch vor wenigen Tagen die Innehaltung einer unbesetzten Zone von 10 Kilometern zugesagt hat, an verschiedenen Stellen die deutsche Grenze überschritten. Französische Kompanien halten seit gestern Nacht deutsche Ortschaften besetzt. Bomben werfende Flieger kommen seit gestern nach Baden, Bayern und unter Verletzung der belgischen Neutralität über belgischen Gebiet nach der Rheinprovinz und versuchen, unsere Bahnen zu zerstören. Frankreich hat damit den Angriff gegen uns eröffnet und den Kriegszustand hergestellt. Die Reichssicherheit zwingt uns zu Gegenmaßnahmen. Seine Majestät der Kaiser hat die erforderlichen Befehle erteilt. Der deutsche Botschafter in Paris ist angewiesen worden, seine Pässe zu fordern. 2)

Berlin 3rd August offical government report,
So far German troops according to the order given have not crossed the French border. However French troops since yesterday (2nd August) are attacking our border guard posts. they have crossed the German border on several places. French company's have occupied since yesterday evening (2nd August) several German towns. Bomb throwing aircraft have
been sighted over Baden and Bavaria and by violation of the Belgium neutrality are crossing Belgium airspace in order to attack railwaylines in the Rhineland. France therefore has opened hostilities against us and has set the state of war. The responsibility towards our countries security, forces us to take countermeasures, the Kaiser has given the respective orders.

This German information differs from the english website that states, however without naming a source:
2nd August

As for Russia:

obwohl Kaiser Wilhelm am 1. August in seinem letzten Telegramm an den Zaren (Deutsche Dokumente Nr. 600) diesen dringend bat, seine Truppen anzuweisen, auf keinen Fall die deutsche Grenze zu verletzen, fielen noch am selben Tage russische Abteilungen in deutsches Gebiet ein. (Deutsche Dokumente Nr. 629, 662, 664, Untersuchungsausschuß, Heft 2, S. 16, Anm.)

Even though the Kaiser in his last telegram on 1st of August to the Zar sincerely requested him to order his troops not to violate the German border, Russian units (detachments) on the same day entered German territory (German documents Nr. 629, 662, 664,)

Unfortunatly (at least I believe so) you do not speak German, otherwise the offical investigation account in 1922 reveals the entire picture that lead to WWI - it shows and documents very clearly that Russias military leadership (not the Zar) clearly intended to attack Germany - even before Austria and Germany fully mobilized. France had pledged full support to Russias intention on 24th July (7 days before Germany mobilized) -Englands king George had promised Wilhelms brother Heinrich, that GB would stay neutral.(German documents 207, 374)

Hu, lucky I found an English website too, which verifys the German report, however without naming a source:
First World War.com - On This Day - 1 August 1914


Also interesting sidenote same english website: 2nd August 1914



Kriegsausbruch 1914 - Die russische Gesamtmobilmachung
Die Deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch 1914



Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

Hah, as much as the Polish attacked Germany in 1939, eh? What a lot of rubbish.

You are much misguided and reading god knows what kind of history books, Kruska.