Landships II

Yes and no.

As far as Britain was concerned Germany did start the war (with the UK) by invading Belgium a neutral countrywith which Britain had signed a very public treaty guaranteeing its protection if it were attacked. If this had not occurred its possible that Britain might have stayed out. One could say therefore that the immediate reason for Britain going to war in 1914 was exactly the same as that for going to war in 1939 - Germany had invaded a country  which Britain had guaranteed to protect.  As Britain had some time before effectively 'warned off' Germany from  a possible invasion of France through Belgium the German government must have been aware of what the consequences would be.

Whilst 'conquering the world' is somewhat of an extreme way of putting it the Kaiser's government did have an aspiration to become the dominant power. Policies such as 'The drive to the East' and 'Germany's place in the sun' which were begun after Bismark's dismissal were a reflection of this (Bismark had not had such grandiose plans seeing Germany's role as being the leading player in Europe). However up to about mid 1916 it would seem that Germany had a view of a post war world in which she had expanded into Eastern Europe and also acquired sizeable chunks of the British and French colonial empires as part of the peace settlement. It may have been one of the effects of the very heavy German casualties at the Somme which exceeded those of the attacking British and French forces (and the realisation that an absolute victory was not a foregone conclusion) that the German war aims became less ambitious.

Its interesting to note that after the German reunification when a government in Berlin could once again speak for the whole country a statement was issued apologising for Germany's leading role in creating the conditions that lead to both world wars. I can remember hearing the German ambassador to Britain being interviewed on the BBC at the time.

One of course must distinguish between governments and people. In 1914 the Kaiser's government had not been elected but appointed.

Roger Todd wrote:

---

But the massive casualties were only a consequence of that fact that, for once, British forces fought in the main theatre of war, on someone else's territory, against the bulk of the enemy's troops (I think there might be some Frenchmen who might disagree) (unlike the Napoleonic Wars when the Royal Navy kept Bonaparte at bay, while relatively small British forces acted with much stronger allies on the continent; and WW2, when the Navy and RAF kept Hitler at bay, while relatively small British forces etc. etc.).

---

Vilkata's question recalls a scene in Peter Weir's "Gallipoli". The young protagonist, eager to enlist, is traversing the vast desert of Western Australia. He chances upon a hermit who is surprised to hear that Australia and Germany are at war. When the hermit enquires as to the cause of the war, the young man replies, gesturing to the seemingly limitless wasteland, that it is to prevent the Germans from "taking all this away from us". 

Concern about Germany's expanding fleet led to the establishment of a navy in Canada and Australia during the years leading up to the Great War. However, I think it would be fair to say that fear of German expansionism would have been well down the list of concerns of an average overseas Dominion citizen in the spring of 1914. The war was greeted with enthusiasm (at least in the English-speaking portions of the Dominions) due to an intense loyalty to the UK, first- and second-generation British immigrants forming a large proportion of their populations at this time. In any case, given the constitutional arrangements of the period, the Dominions automatically joined the war with Britain's declaration. 

I saw ANZACS a number of years ago, in a truncated version broadcast by the CBC. It has an interesting sequence depicting tank-infantry cooperation at Amiens, and also pillbox storming at Third Ypres. The series was refreshingly free of blatent errors about uniforms, weapons, tactics and events.

this thread is in danger of becoming very political. i dont want to talk in absolutes, just generalities. this is a forum for modellers. i'm sorry if any of what i say here causes any offence: i mean no offence. i do always try to see as many different opinions as possible before making up my mind (and then leaving it open to change). here goes:

i think its impossible to say with certainty what a whole nation was thinking or feeling. even if an opinion poll had been gathered at the time, it would of course have been interpreted in a biased manner to suit anyone's objective, or asked in a biased fashion, or influenced by choosing whom one asks. i would have thought that that would also include seemingly unbiased canvassers (such as The Guardian newspaper or the BBC if they had existed back then). in that case, an opinion poll would become just another tool of propoganda ("in a recent poll, 8 out of 10 belgian mothers would rather not have their babies bayoneted", for example could mean only 10 belgian mothers were asked a rather stupid question that perpetuates an unsubstantiated outrageous claim)

i think a, perhaps, more relevant point is that propoganda was much easier a hundred years ago than it is now, for many reasons. perhaps people were less cynical and more trusting (the horrors of industrial scale slaughter had not been experienced), cinema was relatively new, and high speed communication consisted of the telegraph (not exactly mass communication). many working class people were illiterate and so believed what they heard, or were told. so, yes, perhaps a large portion of australians  believed that if they didnt stick up for mother england, they would be next. then again, it was a long time ago, and can anyone really be certain what an entire nation was thinking?

Long before WW1 and even before Australia became a single country Australian forces joined Britain in military actions even when these were to meet situations that do not seem to have had any connection with Australia. I believe that the first of these may have been a joint services naval and army  operation around the Horn of Africa to the coast of Sudan to support the Gordon Relief Expedition. (I'm not sure which Australian state mounted this operation).

Australian states appear to have had a desire to acquire some 'modern' military hardware even when there was no similarly equipped country within a thousand miles. I enclose an extract from one of my (as yet) unpublished books that describes how the State of Victoria acquired an ironclad turret warship in 1870 when such warships were the WMDs of their day.

There was a rash of monitor like ships in navies around the World. These usually took the form of ‘breastwork’ monitors. Although these retained the low freeboard characteristic of the original Monitor the turrets were mounted on a low armoured breastwork, in some cases a system of collapsible (or removable) bulwarks were also used to avoid the decks being awash in a heavy sea thus reducing the risk of swamping. Of course the bulwarks had to be dropped or removed when going into action so these ships were still not really suitable for combat in open waters. Typical of such vessels was HMVS (Her Majesty’s Victorian Ship) Cerberus. She was a monitor of the Cyclops class and was purchased by the Government of the Australian state of Victoria to defend Melbourne harbour (thus becoming the first Australian warship). Built in Britain the Cerberus had first to be got to Australia and it had been intended that the Royal Navy would convey the ship out to the antipodes and hand it over to the Victorian authorities. However so bad was the reputation of monitors as sea going vessels that there was mass desertion from her crew. In the end she sailed in 1870 with a civilian contract crew (presumable highly paid) and equipped with a temporary set of masts and sails and specially built up and reinforced bulwarks. The Cerberus reached Melbourne safely after all and a Victorian crew took over. One wonders what was threatening Melbourne in 1870 that required the city to be protected by an armoured vessel mounting heavy guns. Whatever it was the Cerberus must have acted as a suitable deterrent for she peacefully protected the harbour with her guns into the early part of the 20th Century and is still protecting it today, albeit as part of a breakwater.

Possibly a case of being able to say " you call that a warship? Well this is what I call a warship"

I suspect that in general there was a feeling in Australia that they were a European country (despite a few minor matters such as their geographical position) and what worried European countries should worry them

BTW If you want to read a very comic (but I think affectionate) view of Australian 'ego' and stereotypes try Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent in which he introduces us to the Discworld country of Fourecks peopled by people called Mad (driving an armoured hay lorry), Tin Head Ned, various desert queens, opera singers etc etc. No one wants to leave because 'no other place has got anything that isn't already here' and all politicians are sent to prison on being elected  'because it saves time later' (now there's a practice worth considering)