Here everything began...

Hi Otto:

I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989. I also saw the Archduke's uniform. It was very unsettling to view the bloodstains from his wounds and reflect upon the millions of lives sacrificed in the aftermath of his asassination.

Chas. :cry:
 
That would be a fascinating thing to see. However the assasination of the Archduke and his wife didn't start WW1, it probably would have started regardless of who had been murdered. The passage of time tends to distort why countries go to War with the civil war being a good example. Economics and not slave issue was the root cause although the slavery issue is the most often promoted rationale for the war, particularly in european countries. Pre-1914 Europe was a hotbed of ambitious autocrats who either feared or coveted their neighbours sovereignty. WW1 has to be the saddest of all wars as it could have been prevented. Anyway that's my humble opinion. Love reading this forum. Thanks,
Bill - 'It's getting cold in Maryland'
 
Raiseth said:
That would be a fascinating thing to see. However the assasination of the Archduke and his wife didn't start WW1, it probably would have started regardless of who had been murdered. The passage of time tends to distort why countries go to War with the civil war being a good example. Economics and not slave issue was the root cause although the slavery issue is the most often promoted rationale for the war, particularly in european countries. Pre-1914 Europe was a hotbed of ambitious autocrats who either feared or coveted their neighbours sovereignty. WW1 has to be the saddest of all wars as it could have been prevented. Anyway that's my humble opinion. Love reading this forum. Thanks,
Bill - 'It's getting cold in Maryland'
Click to expand...

I agree with you Bill, but the murderer was the sparkle that detonated the gunpowder barrel in that had transformed Europe (or at least, part of her).

Otto
 
epsomgreen said:
I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989.
Click to expand...
At the museum? I sat and ate my lunch several times in 1994 on the bridge in Sarajevo where they were assassinated. Children walked by, birds sang, and I ate a sandwich. It was surreal.
 
I think I know which bridge you are talking about! I'm trying to remember it was a long time ago but I thought that the assassination took place on the far side of the bridge. I think the Serbs put a plaque on the side of the building right next to the narrow road, where the car turned around. The plaque was defaced, and eventually one ended up on the sidewalk or maybe it was the other way around. I think the old library was down by the bridge I'm sure it was quite beautiful and surreal at times. It was kind of hectic during my time there. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the birds. (All Quiet on the Western Front) I wonder what it's like today? There must be a museum or something on the spot.
 
epsomgreen said:
Hi Otto:

I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989. I also saw the Archduke's uniform. It was very unsettling to view the bloodstains from his wounds and reflect upon the millions of lives sacrificed in the aftermath of his asassination.

Chas. :cry:
Click to expand...

I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18...
Otto
 
The last reply went wrong in some way or another. :(

If you like to be refreshed a little on this topic, I invite you the visit one page on my website. The page is called "The Sparkle to War",
http://pierreswesternfront.punt.nl/?gr=778323#457331 .

Thanks.
Pierre GG
 
Pierre,

I didn't know your web site had so much good stuff in it. I love the photographs, and I have concentrated on looking at photographs. I didn't realize you had little historical articles! Nice job! I remember the bridges and the corner, but for some reason it seems like the street was real, real narrow. It was on the far end of the smaller bridge. Ranges were very very small. I wasn't doing any sightseeing at the time so my recollection may be false.

Now for my real reason to comment. I loved reading your article on the Schlieffen plan. This has fascinated me recently, and there is a tremendous debate that took place in the society of military historians. Between Zuber and Holmes.

Lots of questions as to what the real German plan was. Here is some stuff I have written, but have not yet published. Fascinating topic -- thanks.

The German plan is so well-known as to be dogma. Called the Schieffen plan, it is taught in every school and repeated in every book we have read about the German plans in World War I. Even Holger Herwig may be the leading historian on German plans, falls into the trap of retelling the story of the Schlieffen Plan. But there is an embellishment on this story, which is ingrained in the historian that the Germans had 40 days to complete this plan. At the end of 40 days, the Russians would enter the East and Germany would be trapped in a two front war. Therefore dogma tells us that Schlieffen sent 7/8 of the army against the French in what has been described by Herwig as "one throw of the dice."
Click to expand...

Recently, historians have brought into question the entire Schlieffen Plan story. Terrence Zuber, in his book "Inventing the Schlieffen Plan." Makes the assertion that there never was a Schlieffen plan. What is clear is that the 1905 Denkschrift, written by Schlieffen envisioned a one front war were all of the German forces were launched in a hammer to pin the French army against Switzerland. There was no mention of 40 days and a timetable associated with it. And there were also eight make-believe Ersatz Corps that beefed up the right wing of the German Army. Schlieffen envisioned 82 divisions going into the right wing alone out of a total army strength of 79 divisions. If you count the nonexistent ersatz Corps, Schlieffen required 96 divisions when there were only 62 available in 1905 and 79.5 in 1914. Zuber questions whether or not Schlieffen ever considered such an ambitious wheel to be the final plan. It is clear from maneuvers and plans after the time of Schlieffen that the Germans were not always sure whether they were going to march against the Russians or against the French first. Dogma has it that the reason the Germans lost is because Moltke, the Chief of Staff, had watered down the right wing and reinforced the left wing, as well as having sent two corps to Russia during the 40 days. Zuber takes exception to Herwig's timetable, claiming that in 40 days the wheel around Paris, could not have been accomplished.

Zuber maintains that the concept of Schlieffen Plan was an invention of postwar blame mongers, who said "it wasn't our fault, but rather Moltke blew it." He says repeatedly that there is no mention of the Schlieffen plan in any text prior to 1920.

One of the leading blame mongers was a former German general named Hermann von Kuhl. He blamed Moltke profusely and didn't bring your attention directly to the fact that he was the Chief of Staff of the first army.

Zuber repeatedly, points out that Schlieffen's primary objective was to increase the size of the German army. The then Chief of Staff was very determined to increase the size of the army, because it was the only way that he saw a clear way to win the war. Hew Strachan, perhaps leading historian on World War I states. "The Schlieffen plan was therefore no more a definitive statement of thinking in the German General Staff in 1905 than it was in 1914, and what demonstrates this point most conclusively of all is its approach to manpower. The Schlieffen plan assumed that Germany had 94 divisions available; in fact in 1905 it had barely 60."
Click to expand...
 
Joe,
Thank you for your nice words about my pages. The little articles were only meant and written for "Rookies of WW1", on request of my family and friends. I am only an amateur who tries to describe, based on different sources, in short sentences what has been going on. I do hope secretly that someone's curiosity (especially of the young people) is triggered to go and search and find more out. And to my surprise, it triggered you to go deeper into the Von Schlieffenplan. :D
By the way, I do not pretend to be more than an modest, enthousiastic amateur, a battlefield-dreamer.

I know there has been a discussion going on about the Von Schlieffenplan.
Even in the Netherlands there are heavy discussions going on.
I can only emphasize that the Von Schlieffenplan of 1905 was altered and altered again, in that way, that only the basic exit-points of the plan were maintained in 1914. For many and different reasons, like some you described: not enough troops and later Von Moltke's choice to deploy less troops on his right flank than originally planned.
Von Schlieffen retired in 1906 and died in 1913 and had nothing to do with the implementation of his original plan in 1914.
I have read Strachan's book in the Dutch edition. There is a lot of discussion going on about this book also here.
I based my conclusion on more books than the one of Hew Strachan, whose work I highly respect.

To my modest conclusion, only 3 basic points of Von Schlieffen were
maintained in 1914:
1. The plan was based on a possible Russian mobilization (=war for the Germans of those times) and attack, combined with the knowledge of alliance with France.
2. The offensive at the Western front was meant to be a kind of pre-emptive strike against the most important ally of Russia. I know this is a discutable question for some people. Because for example, it would justify a reason for war for the Germans. But it is an interesting thought perhaps to take into consideration?
3. The movement of advance of the troops to the east and to the west through Belgium and France were roughly the same as Von Schlieffen had envisaged in his plan. (Let us not forget i.e., that the Germans were already advanced near the nowadays Disneyland, France, near Paris before the Battle of the Marne was launched as counter offensive by the Allies. Basically progressing or advancing to fast for the plan.)

So the plan of 1914 had maintained it's basic idea's of the original plan of 1906 but could not be compared anymore to its latest version.
I mean: "The original car "Porsche" looks and is different now from that one of some 10 years ago."

My opinion is only humble and is open for new idea's and point of views to "enlighten"me.
:wink:
Pierre GG
 
Rendsburg said:
epsomgreen said:
Hi Otto:

I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989. I also saw the Archduke's uniform. It was very unsettling to view the bloodstains from his wounds and reflect upon the millions of lives sacrificed in the aftermath of his asassination.

Chas. :cry:
Click to expand...

I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18...
Otto
Click to expand...

Hi Pierre,
My Tarzan's English some times change what I want to say. When I say:
I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18..., it means in 1972 I was at the Museum and see the car, uniform, etc.
Otto :oops:
 
Rendsburg said:
Hi Pierre,
My Tarzan's English some times change what I want to say. When I say:
I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18..., it means in 1972 I was at the Museum and see the car, uniform, etc.
Otto :oops:
Click to expand...

Oh no, Otto , I think you maybe misunderstood my "something went wrong.....etc." :)
I had to post my reply twice before it was definitely posted here.
That's all.
Your English is ok, as far as I'm concerned. :D
And about memory and memories: I know the problem. I am still of the same age as you are , my friend. Remember? :D
Pierre
 
Rendsburg wrote:
epsomgreen wrote:
Hi Otto:

I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989. I also saw the Archduke's uniform. It was very unsettling to view the bloodstains from his wounds and reflect upon the millions of lives sacrificed in the aftermath of his asassination.

Chas.


I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18...
Otto


Hi Pierre,
My Tarzan's English some times change what I want to say. When I say:
I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18..., it means in 1972 I was at the Museum and see the car, uniform, etc.
Otto
Click to expand...

Hey Otto, I was there too in 1972, in July. I was 17, did we pass in the hall with out knowing?
Best wihses
Gus
 
Gustaf said:
Rendsburg wrote:
epsomgreen wrote:
Hi Otto:

I stood in that very spot when I visited Vienna in 1989. I also saw the Archduke's uniform. It was very unsettling to view the bloodstains from his wounds and reflect upon the millions of lives sacrificed in the aftermath of his asassination.

Chas.


I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18...
Otto


Hi Pierre,
My Tarzan's English some times change what I want to say. When I say:
I saw all that in 1972, I was young, only 18..., it means in 1972 I was at the Museum and see the car, uniform, etc.
Otto
Click to expand...

Hey Otto, I was there too in 1972, in July. I was 17, did we pass in the hall with out knowing?
Best wihses
Gus
Click to expand...

I was in July too, I think I see you there! Were you standing in a display using your mask of gas?

Otto
 
Hi Otto,
No that was not me, I was wearing a cowboy hat, but it is a small world.
Gus
 
Gustaf said:
Hi Otto,
No that was not me, I was wearing a cowboy hat, but it is a small world.
Gus
Click to expand...

Hi Gus,
It's true! Like we say in Brazil " O mundo é uma aldeia " (more or less: "The world is a village ")
Otto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top