Unconditional Hatred

[martin_sole]

By Cpt. Russel Grenfell

Published by Devin-Adair, 1953.

I was given a second hand copy of this for Christmas. It covers a slew of historical incidents from 1864 to 1945 which according to the author, all stem from other countries being beastly to Germany. His take on the cause of the Great War is not one which I have read before but it breaks down like this:

1. That Austria's reaction to the assassination was proportional to the crime. Had the Prince of Wales been assassinated by Irish Nationalists in Dublin, Britain's own reaction would have been similar if not more severe. That was how Empires rolled in the early C20.

2. That Austria was right to reject Serbia's counter-offer. The two rejected demands were the critical ones and to accept Serbia's reply would be a green light for further anti-Austrian action and the possible collapse of her Empire. Franz Josef was playing a high stakes game and compromise was not going to win it for him.

3. That once Russia stepped in on Serbia's side, Germany had good reason to be nervous of the Franco Russian pact, whose forces outnumbered their own army by about a million men and the wording of which made itnl clear that France would aid Russia in any circumstances i.e. if Russia were the aggressor or the defender.

4. That far from being gung-ho with their military actions, Germany displayed restraint, holding off mobilisation whilst Grey attempted to diffuse or at least localise the conflict. During the two days that Germany waited, Russia switched from partial to total mobilisation and began arraying her armies against Germany.

5. That France worked towards war by not dissuading Russia from mobilising, believing that a war against Germany was in France's interest as the only way to reclaim Alsace and Lorraine and also believing that the French army was well positioned for a swift victory over Germany.

5. That Germany's attack on France via Belgium, far from being naked aggression was in fact a strategic necessity on Germany's part, that the moral high ground needed to be sacrificed to avoid waiting for Russia and France to get all their ducks in a row.

The bottom line according to Grenfell is that laying full blame on Germany for starting the war is wrong. He blames the Serbs for instigating the war and the Russians for escalating it to a global conflict.

It's not really an aspect of the war that I've read up on much and I would be interested in hearing people's views on this book and its author.

[bill24chev]

If I have the Chronology correct, the Kaisers so called "Blank Cheque"was given before Russia had even considered mobilising , altough he knew egging on the Austro-Hungarians to threaten Serbia would result in Russian mobilisation.

Germany could easily have fought the defensive war in the West while, with Austro-Hungarian support , taking on the Russians as they mobilised.

This would have avoided attacking through Belgium making it difficult for the UK to declare war one Germany and creating a diplomatic dilemma for the UK if France moved into Belgum first. I believe French Cavalry crossed into Belgium only a few hours after the German invasion. The French may not have been aware of the German troop movements at this time.

[brummell]

Martin,

I wonder if you have read Douglas Newton's 'The Darkest Days'? In my view his argument quite explodes the 'it was all Germany's fault, war was inevitable' thesis. Like Grenfell, Newton is scathing of the near-absence of any restraint in St Petersburg, or of St Petersburg by Paris.

He is also very good on the 'guarantee' of Belgian neutrality, arguing that Palmerston had previously refused to act on the even more explicit treaty with Denmark on the basis that it wasn't in our national interest yet avoided all the opprobrium that it was (and still is) said would descend on us had we not declared war over Belgian neutrality. Grey and Asquith chose war, is his argument, and used the scrap of paper as a fig-leaf.

Shame Grenfell appears not have had much to say on London's part in it all - I imagine he would have had some interesting thoughts on it.

- brummell

[Murrough]

By Cpt. Russel Grenfell

Published by Devin-Adair, 1953.

I was given a second hand copy of this for Christmas. It covers a slew of historical incidents from 1864 to 1945 which according to the author, all stem from other countries being beastly to Germany. His take on the cause of the Great War is not one which I have read before but it breaks down like this:

1. That Austria's reaction to the assassination was proportional to the crime. Had the Prince of Wales been assassinated by Irish Nationalists in Dublin, Britain's own reaction would have been similar if not more severe. That was how Empires rolled in the early C20

How would that have worked, Ireland was part of the UK in 1914(it was the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), who would an ultimatum be sent to? would they declare a state of war and invade, can a country invade itself?

I'm afraid Grenfell used a bad analogy.

[Black Maria]

How would that have worked, Ireland was part of the UK in 1914(it was the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), who would an ultimatum be sent to? would they declare a state of war and invade, can a country invade itself?

I'm afraid Grenfell used a bad analogy.

I must admit, I thought the same as you when I read that

[martin_sole]

How would that have worked, Ireland was part of the UK in 1914(it was the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), who would an ultimatum be sent to? would they declare a state of war and invade, can a country invade itself?

I'm afraid Grenfell used a bad analogy.

And Serbia was part of the AH empire, just as unwillingly as Ireland was to the British

I think the point Grenfell was making was that murdering the heir to an Empire was always going to have a shitstorm following it.

Would England have let such an act slide?

Or would England have stamped all over Ireland shouting "cock-a-doodle-do"?

[martin_sole]

If I have the Chronology correct, the Kaisers so called "Blank Cheque"was given before Russia had even considered mobilising , altough he knew egging on the Austro-Hungarians to threaten Serbia would result in Russian mobilisation.

Germany could easily have fought the defensive war in the West while, with Austro-Hungarian support , taking on the Russians as they mobilised.

This would have avoided attacking through Belgium making it difficult for the UK to declare war one Germany and creating a diplomatic dilemma for the UK if France moved into Belgum first. I believe French Cavalry crossed into Belgium only a few hours after the German invasion. The French may not have been aware of the German troop movements at this time.

Is a promise for mutual support the same as getting an army off its bunks and in the field?

Considering the size of the French and Russian armies, and without the hindsight of knowing the fighting quality of said armies, maybe the German high command didn't think that defending either front would be an easy proposition?

[Murrough]

And Serbia was part of the AH empire, just as unwillingly as Ireland was to the British

I think the point Grenfell was making was that murdering the heir to an Empire was always going to have a shitstorm following it.

Would England have let such an act slide?

Or would England have stamped all over Ireland shouting "cock-a-doodle-do"?

Surely Serbia was an independent Kingdom in 1914.There was not just England,we were all one happy UK in 1914 albeit with regional differences(especially Irish home rule question). England would not have invaded Ireland in 1914,if such an act of terrorism occurred, a country cannot invade itself,we were all part of the UK,

Its just a very silly analogy,and there was not an English army in 1914(ever hear of the British army?it included all the people of the UK)

Amazing, nonsensical, statement from your goods self

[martin_sole]

Surely Serbia was an independent Kingdom in 1914.There was not just England,we were all one happy UK in 1914 albeit with regional differences(especially Irish home rule question). England would not have invaded Ireland in 1914,if such an act of terrorism occurred, a country cannot invade itself,we were all part of the UK,

Its just a very silly analogy,and there was not an English army in 1914(ever hear of the British army?it included all the people of the UK)

Amazing, nonsensical, statement from your goods self

You are correct regarding Serbia's independence. My mistake.

Thanks for putting me straight on my "amazing, nonsensical statement" punctuated with a "whacko" emoticon.

Personally, I always find that being ridiculed is the best way for me to learn about new topics. Thanks.

I didn't suggest that there was an English army. Nor did I suggest that England would invade Ireland.

Grenfell's suggestion is that England (or rather Westminster) would not let the assassination of the prince of Wales slide, and that if Irish Nationalists had done such a thing, that England's wrath would come down on Ireland in one form or another, UK or no UK.

If you don't agree with the author, fair enough. There are elements that don't sit well with me either but I thought it was a book worthy of discussion.

[brummell]

I agree with martin_sole.

Grenfell isn't drawing an analogy. He doesn't say 'the British response to the assassination of the PoW by Irish Nationalists would be identical in all respects to the AH Empire's actions against Serbia', which is what murrough thinks he says. He just invites us to imagine what that response would be, and I'm sure we can agree that the response would be, er, robust.

Grenfell's point is sound - the Austro-Hungarian response was not excessive given the enormity of the crime and the Serbian government's failure to act over it.

- brummell

[Murrough]

You are correct regarding Serbia's independence. My mistake.

Thanks for putting me straight on my "amazing, nonsensical statement" punctuated with a "whacko" emoticon.

Personally, I always find that being ridiculed is the best way for me to learn about new topics. Thanks.

I didn't suggest that there was an English army. Nor did I suggest that England would invade Ireland.

Grenfell's suggestion is that England (or rather Westminster) would not let the assassination of the prince of Wales slide, and that if Irish Nationalists had done such a thing, that England's wrath would come down on Ireland in one form or another, UK or no UK.

If you don't agree with the author, fair enough. There are elements that don't sit well with me either but I thought it was a book worthy of discussion.

My Apologies Martin,Happy new year.

[Murrough]

I agree with martin_sole.

Grenfell isn't drawing an analogy. He doesn't say 'the British response to the assassination of the PoW by Irish Nationalists would be identical in all respects to the AH Empire's actions against Serbia', which is what murrough thinks he says. He just invites us to imagine what that response would be, and I'm sure we can agree that the response would be, er, robust.

Grenfell's point is sound - the Austro-Hungarian response was not excessive given the enormity of the crime and the Serbian government's failure to act over it.

- brummell

Look at what was written.

"1. That Austria's reaction to the assassination was proportional to the crime. Had the Prince of Wales been assassinated by Irish Nationalists in Dublin, Britain's own reaction would have been similar if not more severe. That was how Empires rolled in the early C20."

[bill24chev]

A better example using the PoW would be an assassination in Belfast by a Nationalist from the South after 1922.

However, Princip, the primary assassin, although born in Serbia was a member of Young Bosnia. This would now be regarded as a Terrorist Group but had only tenuous links with Serbia and the Black Hand society of mainly Serbian Officers with Serbian Nationalist ideals.

the Austro-Hugarian Empire was looking for a war with Serbia and the fact that one of the assassins was Serbian gave them an excuse to make unacceptable demands on Serbia. This would not have happened had the Kaiser not provided his support.

[brummell]

murrough,

As per your instructions I've looked again at what was written. I don't really see your point. "Britain's own reaction would have been similar if not more severe" are martin_sole's words, not Grenfell's, and in any case are clearly referring to the severity of the reaction rather than the form. This 'Britain declaring war on itself' idea that you've taken against isn't an argument that anyone has actually made.

- brummell

[Murrough]

murrough,

As per your instructions I've looked again at what was written. I don't really see your point. "Britain's own reaction would have been similar if not more severe" are martin_sole's words, not Grenfell's, and in any case are clearly referring to the severity of the reaction rather than the form. This 'Britain declaring war on itself' idea that you've taken against isn't an argument that anyone has actually made.

- brummell

Ah,we are in the same boat, I can't see your point either,I responded to what was written,and it is quite clear that a comparison was being made, but if you can't see that,so be it.

[martin_sole]

the Austro-Hugarian Empire was looking for a war with Serbia and the fact that one of the assassins was Serbian gave them an excuse to make unacceptable demands on Serbia. This would not have happened had the Kaiser not provided his support.

I think the point Grenfell makes is that from Austria's perspective, the demands on Serbia were proportional to the crime and necessary for her survival. Austria needed Serbia to kow-tow in order to dissuade further actions against the Austro Hungarian empire.

Grenfell feels that the history book claim of Serbia being mostly compliant to Austria's initial demands is a post-hoc excuse for Serbia's desire for confrontation - safe in the knowledge that the Big Boys were on her side

Serbia could have acquiesced and then been difficult about the actual implementation of the demands, but instead chose a flat-out refusal of two critical elements.

[bill24chev]

Martin

If we have used a "what if" comparison of the UK's reaction to the assassination of the PoW, I think we must now look at the "what if" scenario of the UK's response to similer demands made by Austro-Hungary to Serbia.

I doubt if any of the demands would have been accepted by the UK

Bill

[martin_sole]

Martin

If we have used a "what if" comparison of the UK's reaction to the assassination of the PoW, I think we must now look at the "what if" scenario of the UK's response to similer demands made by Austro-Hungary to Serbia.

I doubt if any of the demands would have been accepted by the UK

Bill

I agree.

If English radicals had, for whatever reason, killed Franz Ferdinand whilst he was in London, then AH would equally have had no choice but to demand some pretty hefty penalties or risk an escalation of anti Austrian terrorism elsewhere. After all, if you can get away with murdering the heir to the throne without any serious repercussions, think what else you can get away with? Had Britain refused all the demands and war ensued, would Britain have been wholly innocent?

[Milan]

Hi Bill --

"However, Princip, the primary assassin, although born in Serbia was a member of Young Bosnia."

He wasn't born in Serbia. (sorry for the correction mate, couldn't ignore it - nothing else to add, keep up the good work)

Cheers, Milan

Edited 14 January , 2015 by Milan