Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know they had defenses against their own borders between it and Germany, but surely they should have known Germany wasn't exactly one to play fair and honest and going through Belgium was an obvious choice. I realize they would have had to talk with Belgium about it, but isn't it reasonable to assume that had France said "Your country is a likely scenario in which the Germans are to invade if you allow us to add lots of defensive fortifications it could greatly benefit you and me"?
Alliances and allegiances in pre-WWI Europe were much more complicated than you think. Germany wasn't the bad guy at the war's outbreak; it was bound to the Austria-Hungarian empire on the Austrian side, but not the Hungarian, except through the Austrian bond.
The incident that started the long and complicated chain of alliances that resulted in the war occurred in Bosnia, part of the Hungarian Empire, when the ruling Archduke was assassinated.
It's important to remember that royalty still ruled almost all of Europe in 1914. Every nation except France was still ruled by Kings, even if the kings had democratic controls on their powers, and not all of them had those controls. Even in 1914, there were many absolute Kings in power who controlled their nation from their court.
It's also important to remember how much Queen Victoria's many children became entangled in those alliances. World War I was a war between Royal cousins. The British King, the Russian King and the German King were all cousins through Queen Victoria, and many of the Queens of other nations were their cousins as well.
Looking at the crowned heads' pictures shows how strongly similar they were. It's hard to tell the men apart, and the women all look as similar. They all knew each other, and they all communicated with each other. At the same time, they suffered the competitiveness that is always common in any large family.
All the royal families were highly intertwined in other royal lineages, too. So much so that hemophilia became common in their descendants due to inbreeding. Hemophilia is a recessive gene that both parent must carry to pass it on to a child. The gene came from Queen Victoria, who was a result of inbreeding herself, and all her 9 children carried the gene.
Belgium included. But the ties between Belgium and France were also complicated by common language, as Belgium is bi-lingual; half its citizens speak French and originally came from French territory. But hostility existed as well, as France was very militant in its democracy after its lapse back into royalty by Napoleon and his son.
The King of Belgium at the outbreak of the war was far more closely allied to Germany than France, mostly due to the neighboring empires both occupied in Africa. France and Britain also had African empires, and the war was fought in Africa as well as Europe.
The greatest irony of it all was the war, begun by royals, ultimately destroyed European royalty's power forever. Such a thing was an impossibility that was unthinkable in 1914. Some royalty survived, and still exists, but none ever gained a fraction of the powers they all had at the war's outbreak.
Alliances and allegiances in pre-WWI Europe were much more complicated than you think. Germany wasn't the bad guy at the war's outbreak; it was bound to the Austria-Hungarian empire on the Austrian side, but not the Hungarian, except through the Austrian bond.
The incident that started the long and complicated chain of alliances that resulted in the war occurred in Bosnia, part of the Hungarian Empire, when the ruling Archduke was assassinated.
It's important to remember that royalty still ruled almost all of Europe in 1914. Every nation except France was still ruled by Kings, even if the kings had democratic controls on their powers, and not all of them had those controls. Even in 1914, there were many absolute Kings in power who controlled their nation from their court.
It's also important to remember how much Queen Victoria's many children became entangled in those alliances. World War I was a war between Royal cousins. The British King, the Russian King and the German King were all cousins through Queen Victoria, and many of the Queens of other nations were their cousins as well.
Looking at the crowned heads' pictures shows how strongly similar they were. It's hard to tell the men apart, and the women all look as similar. They all knew each other, and they all communicated with each other. At the same time, they suffered the competitiveness that is always common in any large family.
All the royal families were highly intertwined in other royal lineages, too. So much so that hemophilia became common in their descendants due to inbreeding. Hemophilia is a recessive gene that both parent must carry to pass it on to a child. The gene came from Queen Victoria, who was a result of inbreeding herself, and all her 9 children carried the gene.
Belgium included. But the ties between Belgium and France were also complicated by common language, as Belgium is bi-lingual; half its citizens speak French and originally came from French territory. But hostility existed as well, as France was very militant in its democracy after its lapse back into royalty by Napoleon and his son.
The King of Belgium at the outbreak of the war was far more closely allied to Germany than France, mostly due to the neighboring empires both occupied in Africa. France and Britain also had African empires, and the war was fought in Africa as well as Europe.
The greatest irony of it all was the war, begun by royals, ultimately destroyed European royalty's power forever. Such a thing was an impossibility that was unthinkable in 1914. Some royalty survived, and still exists, but none ever gained a fraction of the powers they all had at the war's outbreak.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria was *heir presumptive* to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Emperor Franz Joseph was on the throne at the time.
There were two major royal families that scattered their children through the royal courts of Europe in the 19th century; Saxe-Coburg Gotha (Queen Victoria) and Glucksburg (King Christian IX of Denmark), the latter was known as the "father-in-law" of Europe due to four of his children either marrying monarchs or becoming consorts. In fact most all of today's remaining and or disposed monarchs of Europe are related to King Christian, not Queen Victoria as many would assume.
Haemophilia entered European royalty through Queen Victoria (who appears to have received the gene due to a spontaneous mutation at birth), and thus spread to the royal courts of Spain, Russia, Prussia and a few other German Houses. Much of the rest of damage was confined to QV's children, grandchildren and other heirs who lived in Great Britain , the last of which having the disease/gene died in the 1940's.
As for royal families all "resembling" each other, this was not universally true and mostly confined to the Romanov and Saxe-Coburg Gotha lines. George V and his cousin Nicholas II were first cousins though their mothers (Princess Alix of Denmark and Princess Dagmar of Denmark); first became consort to Edward VII the other Tsar Alexander III of Russia).
Royalty didn't "inbreed" because they wanted to but rather certain Houses had very strict laws where they could marry. Russia, Denmark and most of the German royal courts limited marriage to those who were from current or former reigning royal houses. Commoners (anyone who was not royal despite say having a noble title) was forbidden under most circumstances.
This lead to the same few countries providing happy hunting grounds for royal brides or grooms depending mostly upon religion. If one wanted Protestants there was Denmark, England and the vast sea of German royal houses. It didn't matter if these princes and princesses were dirt poor (as were the Tecks) and lived in castles not much better than that homes of local commoners, long as one had royal blood things could be arranged.
Alliances and allegiances in pre-WWI Europe were much more complicated than you think. Germany wasn't the bad guy at the war's outbreak; it was bound to the Austria-Hungarian empire on the Austrian side, but not the Hungarian, except through the Austrian bond.
The incident that started the long and complicated chain of alliances that resulted in the war occurred in Bosnia, part of the Hungarian Empire, when the ruling Archduke was assassinated.
It's important to remember that royalty still ruled almost all of Europe in 1914. Every nation except France was still ruled by Kings, even if the kings had democratic controls on their powers, and not all of them had those controls. Even in 1914, there were many absolute Kings in power who controlled their nation from their court.
It's also important to remember how much Queen Victoria's many children became entangled in those alliances. World War I was a war between Royal cousins. The British King, the Russian King and the German King were all cousins through Queen Victoria, and many of the Queens of other nations were their cousins as well.
Looking at the crowned heads' pictures shows how strongly similar they were. It's hard to tell the men apart, and the women all look as similar. They all knew each other, and they all communicated with each other. At the same time, they suffered the competitiveness that is always common in any large family.
All the royal families were highly intertwined in other royal lineages, too. So much so that hemophilia became common in their descendants due to inbreeding. Hemophilia is a recessive gene that both parent must carry to pass it on to a child. The gene came from Queen Victoria, who was a result of inbreeding herself, and all her 9 children carried the gene.
Belgium included. But the ties between Belgium and France were also complicated by common language, as Belgium is bi-lingual; half its citizens speak French and originally came from French territory. But hostility existed as well, as France was very militant in its democracy after its lapse back into royalty by Napoleon and his son.
The King of Belgium at the outbreak of the war was far more closely allied to Germany than France, mostly due to the neighboring empires both occupied in Africa. France and Britain also had African empires, and the war was fought in Africa as well as Europe.
The greatest irony of it all was the war, begun by royals, ultimately destroyed European royalty's power forever. Such a thing was an impossibility that was unthinkable in 1914. Some royalty survived, and still exists, but none ever gained a fraction of the powers they all had at the war's outbreak.
Furthermore:
Albert I of Belgium couldn't have been more anti-German during WWI if he tried. This despite being married to a German princess and his mother being same. In fact through Marie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (Albert I's mother) the king was a cousin of the Kaiser. However like the English king across the Channel that didn't blind the King of the Belgians to Germany's faults.
Belgium paid a high price for resisting Germany's request to cross its lands in order to invade France, up to and including seeing that country invaded and occupied by same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_I_of_Belgium
Of the reining royal houses in Europe at 1914 only really Russia was still a total absolute monarchy with perhaps Austria-Hungary & Prussia.
As WWI dragged on however it became clearer and clearer than (except for Russia) none of the monarchs had any real power. By the middle of war even the Kaiser had been sidelined by his generals and was simply given the task of handing out medals and making speeches.
The intermarriage of royals in 19th century was in theory supposed to prevent the wars which had plagued Europe for centuries. Prince Albert's "grand design" (which Queen Victoria went along with) was to people the courts of Europe with British royal children and grandchildren, thus hopefully as one big "family" disputes would be settled more like family quarrels instead of warfare; it didn't work out that way.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, not only detested his English princess mother (Queen Victoria's eldest daughter), but felt Britain was keeping Germany down and or was keen to show the world that country could have all and more (empire, navy, etc....) that GB had and even better. If it meant waging war on his "cousins" so be it.
In Russia things were not going well for Czar Nicholas II and his German wife, Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt of and by the Rhine. The Czarina was widely detested in many circles for various reasons (chief among them for being German), and those pesky revolutionaries kept agitating for reforms, and blowing things and people up, including the Czar's own father.... Worse Russia had suffered a humiliating defeat by Japan ( Russo-Japanese War) which shook that nation from the Romanovs on down.
All of this is important because the weak willed Nicholas II pretty much was the lynchpin for WWI. On July 31, 1914 the Czar mobilized the Russian military in reaction to Austrian warships bombing Belgrade, Serbia. The rest as they say is history. In short order Germany declared war on Russia and her ally France and invades (neutral) Belgium. When demands the latter leave that nation are rejected GB and her Commonwealth nations declare war on Germany, from this moment on no amount of familiar relations could prevent what had been brewing for years if not decades from happening.
The Austria declared war on Serbia in late July 1914; you don't take such actions during the middle of summer when royalty, governments, military generals and pretty much everyone else is on summer holiday and mean it; thus had Nicholas II *NOT* mobilized his military on that fateful 31 July day, there is a very good chance things would have not escalated.
Nicholas II's rationale for his actions was to honor his country's alliance with Serbia. Fair enough one supposes, but the real reasons likely went far deeper and could be found elsewhere. When things aren't going well at home wars usually are a good detraction and can often provide a boost. A successful war against Austria would put some fortunes right for Russia and give her some of her own back after that nasty humiliation with Japan.
However in hindsight and it was also clear to many at the time both in and outside of Russia, that country had no business getting involved in *any* military action much less declaring war. Sadly for the Czar he couldn't have known the forces that would be unleashed which lead not only to him losing his throne but in a way signing death warrants for himself, wife, children and as many Romanovs as Lenin and his followers could lay hands upon.
Albert I of Belgium couldn't have been more anti-German during WWI if he tried. This despite being married to a German princess and his mother being same. In fact through Marie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (Albert I's mother) the king was a cousin of the Kaiser. However like the English king across the Channel that didn't blind the King of the Belgians to Germany's faults.
Belgium paid a high price for resisting Germany's request to cross its lands in order to invade France, up to and including seeing that country invaded and occupied by same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_I_of_Belgium
Of the reining royal houses in Europe at 1914 only really Russia was still a total absolute monarchy with perhaps Austria-Hungary & Prussia.
As WWI dragged on however it became clearer and clearer than (except for Russia) none of the monarchs had any real power. By the middle of war even the Kaiser had been sidelined by his generals and was simply given the task of handing out medals and making speeches.
The intermarriage of royals in 19th century was in theory supposed to prevent the wars which had plagued Europe for centuries. Prince Albert's "grand design" (which Queen Victoria went along with) was to people the courts of Europe with British royal children and grandchildren, thus hopefully as one big "family" disputes would be settled more like family quarrels instead of warfare; it didn't work out that way.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, not only detested his English princess mother (Queen Victoria's eldest daughter), but felt Britain was keeping Germany down and or was keen to show the world that country could have all and more (empire, navy, etc....) that GB had and even better. If it meant waging war on his "cousins" so be it.
In Russia things were not going well for Czar Nicholas II and his German wife, Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt of and by the Rhine. The Czarina was widely detested in many circles for various reasons (chief among them for being German), and those pesky revolutionaries kept agitating for reforms, and blowing things and people up, including the Czar's own father.... Worse Russia had suffered a humiliating defeat by Japan ( Russo-Japanese War) which shook that nation from the Romanovs on down.
All of this is important because the weak willed Nicholas II pretty much was the lynchpin for WWI. On July 31, 1914 the Czar mobilized the Russian military in reaction to Austrian warships bombing Belgrade, Serbia. The rest as they say is history. In short order Germany declared war on Russia and her ally France and invades (neutral) Belgium. When demands the latter leave that nation are rejected GB and her Commonwealth nations declare war on Germany, from this moment on no amount of familiar relations could prevent what had been brewing for years if not decades from happening.
The Austria declared war on Serbia in late July 1914; you don't take such actions during the middle of summer when royalty, governments, military generals and pretty much everyone else is on summer holiday and mean it; thus had Nicholas II *NOT* mobilized his military on that fateful 31 July day, there is a very good chance things would have not escalated.
Nicholas II's rationale for his actions was to honor his country's alliance with Serbia. Fair enough one supposes, but the real reasons likely went far deeper and could be found elsewhere. When things aren't going well at home wars usually are a good detraction and can often provide a boost. A successful war against Austria would put some fortunes right for Russia and give her some of her own back after that nasty humiliation with Japan.
However in hindsight and it was also clear to many at the time both in and outside of Russia, that country had no business getting involved in *any* military action much less declaring war. Sadly for the Czar he couldn't have known the forces that would be unleashed which lead not only to him losing his throne but in a way signing death warrants for himself, wife, children and as many Romanovs as Lenin and his followers could lay hands upon.
A war between Russia and Austria-Hungary would be a piece of cake for the Russians, by 1914 they had pushed through some major military reforms and modernized their army with French money. A-H had a big issue with very large part of their population being Slavic and ever willing to desert to the other side, sometimes battalions at a time. Russia's problem was Austria's alliance with Germany. I do agree that Nicholas likely believed he could have a short victorious war while France and Britain kept Germany busy, grab a chunk of territory from the Austrians, sign peace, and repair his image at home. Of course his army suffered from the same problem of old courtier generals who lacked initiative and were constantly squabbling among themselves, and not paying enough attention to logistics. In the hindsight, the war was suicidal.
I do agree that Nicholas likely believed he could have a short victorious war while France and Britain kept Germany busy, grab a chunk of territory from the Austrians, sign peace, and repair his image at home. Of course his army suffered from the same problem of old courtier generals who lacked initiative and were constantly squabbling among themselves, and not paying enough attention to logistics. In the hindsight, the war was suicidal.
Austria Hungary was probably thinking the exact same thing in reverse:
- Germany keeps Russia busy. Most of their imperial provinces are not subject to conscription. So they are really just fighting the poorly equipped population of Russia proper, Ukraine and Belarus.
- With German help, the Russians suffer an early devastating defeat. The defeat causes western Ukrainians, the Baltics, Russian Poland, Finland and perhaps Belarus to revolt.
- Russian empire collapses in confusion.
- Austria Hungary then incorporates western Ukraine and Russian Poland into new imperial provinces of their own.
- Germany gets the Baltics and Belarus as vassal states. Shares Russian Poland with Austria.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
