Re: Moltke "initiated" WWI ?
- Sorry to say but this has little to notting to do with the historical
facts I presented.
We have seen why Austria and Germany went to war, below (1). What
drove France and Russia to join in the fray in fact instead of `dark
forces' (to me that sounds like `dark' ages "demonology" !) can be
covered in a sentence: Germany declared war on them, and they
Russia might have taken itself out of the conflict, as Russia could
have made common cause with Austria against the regicides and
terrorists, and given Vienna carte blanche, as Germany had done, to
solve the problems as best it could, in its dealings with Serbia.
Had Russia done so, it would have deprived Germany's military
leaders of the conditions and pretexts necessary to initiate their
proposed war against Russia and France. A world war would at least
have been postponed and at best prevented.
Moltke however about who started WWI, in 1915 wrote "this war which
I prepared and initiated." Confirmed again by David Fromkin
in "Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?"(2004),
Austria-Hungary lied when it claimed to be striking back for the
murder of the Archduke.
In fact July 1914 when he decided to invade Belgium Moltke stated
clearly to the General staff; "we shall never hit it again so well
as we do now." Clearly disproving the Anthro conspiracy theory that
it was UK/US who ignited it.
After Belgium fighting for its survival, the British prime minister
(who witnessed all inside discussions and `influences') wrote (in
confidence to his friend); "It is one of the ironies of the case,
that we being the only Power who has made so much as a constructive
suggestion on the direction of peace, are blamed by both Germany and
Russia for causing the outbreak of war. Germany says: 'if you say
you will be neutral, France and Russia wouldn't dare to fight,' and
Russia says: 'if you boldly declare that you will side with us,
Germany and Austria will at once draw in their homs. Neither of
course is true."
Indeed, Moltke ended up breaking right through Belgium and next also
a started to invade France (or that's alls just `relative' and it
didn't really happen?).
My argument is that in spite of the hitherto general opinion of
historians before (not now anymore), WWI did not start with
Sarejewo, but with the invasion of Belgium, evidence?
Britons, who until the beginning of August were against
participating in the war, changed their minds only because of
Belgium and Moltke certainly new that why ? Belgian neutrality had
been guaranteed not just once, but twice, by England starting during
the nineteenth century.
In fact the final decision making process in England in August 1914
confirms that also , of course there where those who believed that
England should keep big countries from trampling on the rights of
small ones and then there were those who viewed the neutrality of
Belgium as a British vital interest, picturing the Channel ports in
the hands of a potential enemy as a strategic threat.
For the majority of the Commons when the decision was crafted for
England to join Belgium in its at the time already loosing, war, as
evidenced from the recorded expressions, the
martyrdom of Belgium was not a pretext; it was, why Britain decided
said it was going to war. Where Germany could not afford to lose
Austria as an ally, Britain could not afford to lose the by now
invaded France as an ally.
Even when Asquith and Grey, who then led the country into war, did
so not fore the sake of a British ideal but like Moltke before, for
the sake of a British vital interest. What Germany was doing would
otherwise have destroyed the balance of power in Europe, something
England couldn't afford. In fact next of course would be England's
colonies, I think that in the end WWI was a in fact also for
Germany, a colonial War(but I would not be willing to discuss this
here as it has little to do with Steiner's Conspiracy theories).Fact
is, Britain decided to fight after France was attacked, to save
1) Only few months before he died von Moltke, complained to his
friend General (Baron) Colmar von der Goltz. "It is dreadful to be
condemned to inactivity in this war, this war which I prepared and
initiated". (See document p.281 in Mombauer "Helmuth Von Moltke and
the Origins of the First World War" 2001.)
As shown by the available evidence today, Moltke took the lead in
advancing two propositions: first, that the alliance with Austria was
absolutely central to Germany and had to be given top priority; and
second, that war against the Triple Entente-Britain, France, and
Russia, three countries that had pledged mutual friendship-was bound
to break out not much later than 1916 or 1917, and that Germany
would lose the war unless it launched a preventive attack
immediately. Certain that war would come, Moltke wanted it sooner
rather than later. He wanted it even though, like many of his
colleagues, he feared that it would bring European civilization to
How this developed has also been clearly been explained and all
relevant documents to prove this have been published in recent years.
Briefly, the history of it is that in fact already the elder Moltke,
chief of the general staff. From 1879 on, following the alliance
agreement with Austria Hungary, planning made provision for a war
against France and Russia. And this is the plan the younger Moltke
saw an opportunity to set in motion when Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo
In fact evidence shows that the Austrian Emperor, though horrified
by the crime itself, was not unhappy that Franz Ferdinand was out of
way. He had not wanted to have the Archduke succeed him on the
throne. "For me, it is a great worry less," he told his daughter in
speaking of the Archduke's death. To a close aide he confided: "God
will not be mocked. A higher power had put back the order I couldn't
maintain." Even Berchtold noted in his diary that during the first
cabinet meeting after the assassination there was "yes,
consternation and indignation, but also a certain easing of mood."
In other words at that time, Austria wasn't even considering the
possibility of ever going to war for this.
But to continue the factual history of events as we know it now from
the beginning, the so called von Schlieffen plan that Moltke the
younger was said to have pursued(the original is kept in the USA
National Archives) was not really a plan, as John Keegan explained
in his path braking 2001 (that makes it 6) book on this subject.
The Schlieffen memorandum Of 1905, with its 19o6 supplement, was not
operational. It did not go into details or issue
orders. This can be clearly viewed in context by reading a selection
of Schlieffen's military writings, which has just appeared in
English translation by Robert T. Foley.(recommended book 7)
A further challenge-mounted is the publication of "Inventing the
Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning, 1871-1914" by Terence Zuber(a
book I mentioned before). Based on archival material that has not
been used before, Zuber believes that the Schlieffen plan never
existed and that Moltke the younger was the true designer of the
German war plans in 1914.The movements of the German army in 1914
was improvised by Molke in response to failure on the German left
Of course Germany did invade France through Belgium, but that was
pursuant to what with more accuracy should be called the "Moltke
plan", as Zuber states.
Reviewing the Schlieffen memoranda some five years later, in 1911,
Moltke indicated in his notes that he agreed that France should be
invaded through Belgium. In the context of Germany's foreign policy,
it created the very encircling coalition Germans professed to
fear.And automatically transformed a German war into a European war
that as a result would become a world war. If Germany attacked
Russia, Germanv would start by invading Belgium, Luxemburg, and
France, therebv bringing them, too, into the war, thus also bringing
Great Britain(committed to Belgium),into the war, bringing in, in
addition, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and
others too, possibly including Britain's Pacific ally, Japan. WWI
didn't start with Sarajewo, it started with Germany invading Belgium
Moltke the Elder and his successor, Count -Alfred von Waldersee,
planned to fight Russia in a limited war that would compel the Czar
to make peace quickly, while at about the same time battling France
with the objective of negotiating peace on favorable terms. It was a
moderate strategy, defensive in spirit, aimed at coming out ahead.
But it did mean splitting forces in order to fight both enemies at
the same time as Moltke the younger decided to do.
Dealing with Russia first what Moltke decided to do (and for which
the German Kaiser sacked him in 1915 then) seemed impractical. Even
if defeated, the Russians could retreat into the almost endless
interior of their vast country: plus Schlieffen, as Of 1905, held a
low opinion of Russian military capabilities.
Ironically the same would happen in WWII because of Hitler's
decision to drive his armies, like before von Moltke,it guaranteed
an ultimate defeat.
So to conclude this, the true sequence of events was as follows;
In 1914 after Austria decided to take no action about Sarajewo, or
as Austria's Foreign Minister Berchtold noted in his diary that
cabinet meeting after the assassination there was "yes,
consternation and indignation, but also a certain easing of mood."
And that the Austrian Emperor, though horrified by the crime itself,
was not unhappy that Franz Ferdinand was out of the way. He had not
wanted to have the Archduke succeed him on the throne. "For me, it
is a great worry less," he told.
In the spring of 1914, Moltke held talks with Gottlieb von Jagow,
Germany's foreign minister. Jagow noted that Moltke told him that in
two or three years the "military superiority of our enemies
would ... be so great that he did not know how he could overcome
them. Today we would still be a match for them. In his opinion there
was no alternative to making preventive war in order to defeat the
enemy while there was still a chance of victory. The Chief of the
General Staff therefore proposed that I should conduct a policy with
the aim of provoking a war in the near future."
Moltke feared that Germans, especially Prussian Germans, would
eventually be overwhelmed by the sheer number of Slavs unless action
was taken promptly. He often had urged starting a war against
Russia, before the Czar modernized and rearmed his empire. Yet
Moltke also foresaw that in the modem age a war among Great Powers
would destroy Europe.
And Moltke already had his general staff prepare a current war plan
in I913-14, before Sarajevo to deal with a two-front war against
France and Russia. Moltke for obvious reasons had kept the details
of this plan secret. Meaning also his wife, a regular citizen not
bound by armee secrecy laws would have known about this either.(And
Moltke for sure never had a reason to tell Steiner about this)
Thus early in the morning of Monday, July 6 adviced by his favorite
General that time still, von Moltke, the German Kaiser sent for
several officers to deliver messages for him.
Admiral Eduard von Capelle, the deputy of Tirpitz, received a phone
call between 7:oo and 8:oo a.m. summoning him. He found Wilhelm in
the garden of his palace. Capelle recalled: "The Emperor walked up
and down with me for a short while and told me briefly of the
occurrences of the day before"-the blank check to Austria (to
protect it in case Russia would attack whenever the Austrians
decided to take action against Serbia) , an account of which Capelle
apparently was to give to Tirpitz.
The Kaiser "did not believe in serious warlike developments.
According to his view, the Czar would not in this case place himself
on the side of regicides. Besides that, Russia and France were not
prepared for war. (The Emperor did not mention England.) On the
advice of the Imperial Chancellor, he was going to start on the
journey to Northland, in order not to create any
uneasiness."(Kautzky's Memoirs ,1924 p. 47, )
A similar message was sent by the hand of a naval officer, Captain
Zenker, to his superiors. "His Majesty had promised" to protect
Austria if Russia interfered "but did not believe that Russia would
enter the lists for Serbia, which had stained itself by an
assassination. France, too, would scarcely let it come to war, as it
lacked the heavy artillery for the field armies. Yet though a war
against Russia-France was not probable, nevertheless the possibility
of such a war must be borne in mind from a military point of
view."(See Zenker's Memoirs p.49.)
In fact as clearly shown by David Fromkin in "Europe's Last Summer:
Who Started the Great War in 1914?"(2004), Austria-Hungary lied when
it claimed to be striking back for the murder of the Archduke. In
fact, the killings at Sarajevo had relatively little to do with the
Hapsburg desire to crush Serbia. What gave away Austria's lie in the
first instance was that it did not attack immediately, which is what
one does when one strikes out in anger or in self-defense.
Alternativelv, one would pursue a full judicial inquiry to its
conclusion, and then publish its results to the world, which Vienna
lacked the patience to do.
The fact-known now, though not then-that the memo submitted to the
Kaiser in support of the plan to go to war was the same memo that
had been prepared before the murders in Sarajevo shows hat it did
not arise from that event.
The Austrian ambassador in Berlin brought a copy of the ultimatum in
final form the way it was going to be send to Serbia to Gotlieb von
Jagow Germany's Foreign Minister in Berlin, later lied and denied
having seen it before it went out. (However, in an interview on
September 17, 1916, with American joumalist William Bullitt, he
admitted that he had seen the ultimatum before it was sent. And
Zimmermann, Jagow's number two, told a coleague (August 11, 19 17)
that "it is true that we received the Serbian ultimatum about twelve
hours before it was presented." Zimmermann wrote that it was
pointless to keep on lying about it, since it "cannot be kept secret
Jagow rechecked calculations and discovered that the Austrians
planned to present the ultimatum an hour too soon while the French
leaders were still in Russia. A panicked effort by Hapsburg
officialdom, alerted by Jagow, resulted in moving that ultimatum
time to an hour later.
The Kaiser and many of his men were certain that none of the other
Great Powers of Europe would intervene to halt the hoped for the
expected Austrian strike. They committed to ward off France and
Russia in the firm belief that they never would be called upon to do
so. They were signing a check that they believed would never be
On July 24, Austria's Foreign Minister Count Leopold von Berchtold
met with the Russian charge d'affaires, Count Kudashev in Vienna ,
and delivered a soothing message: "nothing was further from our
thoughts than the 'Wish to humiliate Serbia"; and the Dual
Monarchy "did not aim at a territorial gain but merely y at the
preservation of the status quo."
Literally, Berchtold -,was telling the truth: Vienna did not intend
to annex Serbia; it ruled too many Slavs already. But he was
deliberately misleading: Austria-Hungary, according to Berchtold's
chief aide at the foreign office, intended to partition Serbia but
to take no part of Serbia for itself.
In fact Berchtold was urged by Germany's foreign Minister Jagow in
Berlin to declare war immediately, before the other powers stepped
in to impose a peace settlement. In turn, the Austro-Hungarian
foreign minister attempted to put pressure on his army chief,
Conrad, who had been a persistent advocate of going to war in the
past. Conrad claimed not to be ready. In Conrad's account:
BERCHTOLD:We should like to deliver the declaration of war on Serbia
as soon as possible so as to put an end to diverse influences. When
do you want the declaration of war?
CONRAD: Only when we have progressed far enough for operations to
begin immediately-on approximately August 12.
BERCHTOLD: The diplomatic situation will not hold as long as that.
Germany's military leaders had focused on blaming Russia for the
European conflict they foresaw and regarded as inevitable. This had
been, and remained, Moltke's line. It was echoed on July 27 by
Admiral von Mueller: Germany should, he told his diary, "remain calm
to allow Russia to put herself in the wrong, but then not to shrink
from war if it were inevitable." Germany's prime minister Bethmann
agreed with the military on this: "In all events Russia must
ruthlessly be put in the wrong," he told WilhelmII.
The July crisis, as Moltke saw it, had evolved, happily for Germany,
in such a way as to place it in a "singularly favorable situation."
Harvests were in, the annual training of recruits had finished, and
Russia and France would not be really ready for two years. Austria
had put itself in a position such that it could not help fighting at
Germany's side, and that was absolutely vital. As Moltke summed it
up: "we shall never hit it again so well as we do now."
At the same time British prime minister Herbert Asquith wrote in
confidence to his friend Venetia Stanley "It is one of the ironies
of the case, that we being the only Power who has made so much as a
constructive suggestion on the direction of peace, are blamed by
both Germany and Russia for causing the outbreak of war. Germany
says: 'if you say you will be neutral, France and Russia wouldn't
dare to fight,' and Russia says: 'if you boldly declare that you
will side with us, Germany and Austria will at once draw in their
homs. Neither of course is true."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "holderlin66"
> "Two years before the lectures, on New Year's Eve 1922/23, the
> priests were in the White Hall of the Goetheanum when flame and
> smoke forced them outdoors into the winter cold. That night the
> Goetheanum, their place of worship, burnt to the ground, reduced to
> smoldering ash and rubble. Although the cause of the blaze has
> been fully established, circumstances suggest arson. Steiner hadthe
> fallen into disfavor among his fellow countryman. Communist and
> Socialist hecklers were known to disrupt his lectures on occasion,
> and on the streets of Munich he was physically attacked. In his
> recent book, the British writer Colin Wilson traces Steiner's
> downfall in public opinion back to the year 1912.
> "His downfall began with the war. The German general von Moltke
> could not make up his mind whether to hurl all his forces at the
> French in one terrific blow and smash them, or to be cautious and
> divide his forces. He asked Steiner to come and see him and asked
> his advice. In fact Steiner arrived too late, and the decision to
> dived the forces, which was to cost Germany the war, had already
> been made. Moltke's decision turned the war into a stalemate that
> would cost millions of lives, and he was dismissed. When it became
> known that Steiner had been to visit him, Steiner was blamed for
> disastrous decision.opposed
> "In the misery that followed the war, Steiner's doctrine of
> invisible worlds seemed suddenly irrelevant. In a time of galloping
> inflation, who cared? What the Germans wanted was some kind of
> practical solution to their problems, and this was offered by the
> Communists. Within a year or two, these solutions were being
> by the National Socialists under an ex-corporal named Adolf Hitler.of
> Undoubtedly, history had played a very nasty trick on the founder
> Anthroposophy. . .While Steiner was preaching against patriotism,mindedness.
> Hitler was preaching the need for a new German nationalism."
> For Steiner, returning to a group soul is, in evolutionary terms,
> regressive. It not only hinders individuation of the ego, stunts
> personal growth, it makes having an ego wholly un-necessary.
> Thinking, willing and feeling is taken over by a collective
> organization of souls bound together by a thread of like-
> Without the I AM, or Higher Ego, thinking became devoid of soulful
> self reflection, essentially eradicating thoughts that enter the
> soul through the Ego. Perhaps this is why individual expression, in
> so far as art is concerned, was in short supply in both Nazi
> and the Soviet Union. Without the I AM principle, great art issoul.
> Needless to say, the I AM lies at the foundation of the Christian
> experience; un-like the "cult," in practice Christians do not seek
> its annihilation. The I AM is cultivated, "washed of
> sin," "cleansed," "illuminated," but never destroyed. In Christian
> esotericism, the I AM's psychic garb is the sublime and radiant
> Light Body. To wear it is to be counted among the living "who have
> washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb."
> Without the I AM the Russian mind shrunk into the materialism of
> those Ethical Socialists of Steiner's day whose main task was
> tooling government engines of greater and higher efficiency. Big
> government seemed to be the answer for all society's problems ---
> but how big? For Marxists the answer was a State of huge sprawling
> dimension big enough to encompass the globe in a mammoth group
> The priests in the Christian Community adopted Steiner's belief:
> that the I AM principle entered human evolution when Jesus
> resurrected from the cross. According to Steiner, the crucifixion
> occurred at a point in history when mankind was prepared to
> facilitate the I AM, not before. It transpired at a specific
> location, Golgotha, creating definite effects in the Soul, and
> therefore should not be regarded as a metaphor or a symbolic myth,
> rather as a factual spiritual event in time-space, a mystery
> unfolding divine substances and divine forces into mankind's soul-
> spiritual life.
> But Steiner stresses that the Mystery of Golgotha is not
> exofacto, all at once. A slow maturation process is required tothat
> fully integrate Christ into the Conscious Mind Soul. Ages, Steiner
> admits, referring to the Book of Revelation which covers thousands
> of years.
> We as readers and recipients of Saint John's Revelation realize
> time is speeding up. Events unfold themselves with ever-increasingjourney
> frequency as we immerse ourselves deeper and deeper into our
> through apocalyptic space. Contemporaries called itsaved;
> the "quickening." An appropriate term. For Jesus himself, speaking
> of the Christ within him, states that he will "shorten the days,"
> meaning he will accelerate consciousness, so where Time is
> experienced at an ever quickening evolutionary tempo drawing
> the `elect' into God.
> And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human would be
> but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened thedays.
> [Mark 13:20]is
> Christianity is apocalyptic, which is a picture language signifying
> events lived and experienced on a historical plane. Hundreds of
> events fill the Apocalypse, the primary one being the Event of
> Golgotha. Others include the incarnation of Ahriman, the Seals, the
> Trumpets, the Vials, the Event of Babylon, etc. An event of major
> importance emerges out of Revelation 10:1 when the air brightens
> when down from heaven appears a "mighty angel." Steiner claims it
> none other than Michael. . . an archetype whose presence is feltfourteenth
> throughout the Apocalypse but is rarely mentioned by name.
> This time Michael is shown with "his right foot upon the sea, and
> left foot on the earth. . ." It is a picture filled with occult
> significance. (His pose bares a strong resemblance to the
> card of the Tarot where Michael is shown in a similar stance, histhe
> legs straddled over earth and water.) He is "clothed with a cloud
> and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the
> sun, and his feet as pillars of fire. . ." Each aspect is analyzed
> in full, in Emil Bock's book on the Revelation. Below, he divests
> meaning into Michael's garment of cloud, fire and rainbow.
> "When mankind as a whole approaches the Threshold a corresponding
> differentiation is effected. A regrouping of the human race is set
> in motion. Today its most conspicuous manifestation is the gradual
> disappearance of the earlier national units and the emergence of
> great East-West polarity.in
> "Michael's Shiva-like stance has legs that are two fire-pillared
> columns forming a gateway into the supersensible. For, Michael is
> the Guardian of the Threshold ushering in a new epoch. Through him
> Christ, the Sun Genius, is revealed. Christ is rarely experienced
> a more direct manner. We are led to believe that the intensity of aof
> direct experience would overwhelm, even blind the onlooker, rather
> than illuminate. Instead, Christ is revealed through angelic Time
> spirits who express the personality and character of an Age. Thus,
> Christ is revealed incrementally, one step at a time, with
> increasing power.
> The Michael event, according to Steiner, occurred in 1879. Most of
> the priests who attended the lectures were alive at that the turn
> the century and were no doubt well aware of its significance.had
> 1879 marks a critical transition point closing the Romantic age and
> opening the gates into the strong-willed twentieth century emerging
> powerful within the full culminating forces of the late industrial
> age. Nietzsche was in a sanitarium at the time, insane. Van Gogh
> committed suicide, claiming "suffering will never end" before
> shooting himself in the stomach.
> In fact, an astounding number of late nineteenth century
> philosophers and artists either went insane, committed suicide, or
> died of tuberculosis or of accidents: Shelley, Keats, Poe, Beddoes,
> Holderlin, Hoffman, Schiller, Kleist, Rimbaud, Verlaine,
> Lautreamont, Dowson, Johnson, Francis Thompson, James Thomson. . ..
> Their lofty romantic ideals had fizzled out, deflated into
> existential nihilism, their "miseries" no longer relevant to the
> World War generation bubbling to the surface of history.
> "In 1879 we have a new generation responsible for the invention of
> the assembly line, mass production, super-condensed steam engines,
> the radio."
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Another clown is back with his one-track-mind about RS being ignorant about
who was responsible for the outbreak of WW I and about Andrea and myself
lying about his own posts.
I an AT message dated Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004, Eric told the following story
about the Goethanum and Anthroposophy Tomorrow:
"No wonder when I called the Goetheanum office ten minutes ago and after
being handed around twice, someone told me this list is considered by
Anthroposophists to be one for "crackpots" ! "
Thank you for letting us know what attracts you to this group. It takes one
to know one, obviously. But are you sure they didn't call *you* a crackpot
after handing you around twice as you say, and that you imagined they were
talking about someone else?
Gisele, didn't you visit the Goethanum right after that post was made and
expose the ramblings of this space cadet?
~~~~Yeah, I felt almost embarrassed by the looks they gave me like:"What is she on about?" - they had no idea of what Eric was talking about, never heard of this list either...
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!