"Die U-Boote des Kaisers", a first new book

Catfish · 9 June 2008, 10:18 AM

about WW1 subs (but ...... more about the political and naval background, it is not a book about U-boat technics). However i know of no book that is that detailed, and thoroughly researched. Be aware this will put WW1 and its causes in a (for me) new dimension, it is however equally hard and fair to the main opponents of WW1.

Title is "Die U-Boote des Kaisers", and it explains in detail why and how those first U-boats were used, against what and why.

This pulls away the internationally accepted cover and dust of almost a hundred years, showing that politics of that time are those of today. It also ends the discussion if the german Kaiser was a helpless marionette, or a monstrous tyrant, and why he had reacted in the way he finally did. It also explains in detail England's politics and plans of ostracizing Germany, and as well the reason for the Entente treaties in 1905 to 07.
Since i am aware that the causes for WW2 go directly back to WW1 and its outcome this is a must read. It is as non-revanchistic as politically incorrect, at least for my generation

.
The price is quite low imho (bought it for 13,95 Euro in a Decius store), and it is only in german, but in one of the critiques there is some hope expressed to have this translated into english soon.

Amazon.de: Die U-Boote des Kaisers - Die Geschichte des deutschen U-Boot-Krieges gegen Großbritannien im Ersten Weltkrieg: Joachim Schröder: Bücher

Presseschau: Die U-Boote des Kaisers

Greetings,
Catfish

FliegerJG1 · 9 June 2008, 01:27 PM

Catfish, thank you for posting this information. I am interested in what you wrote about Kaiser Wilhelm II. Can you write more about him briefly? Why did he react as he did? I have been reading about him and this information would be very good to know. From what I have read, it looks like the people around him manipulated him to do things.

FliegerJG1

Catfish · 10 June 2008, 04:11 AM

Hello,
i have not yet finished reading the book, but i could write a short review when i'm through.
As it is explained in this book William (or Wilhelm) the 2nd was not crazy, nor did he draw the rest of the world into a war. The situation in Europe and parts of Asia were on the brink of war regarding a lot of nations, indeed Wilhelm as the rest of the german military did not believe England would enter a war, and he himself most probably would not have without Sarajevo. After all he was a direct descendant of the British Royal family (and i always wondered where his spleen came from hrrrm

), and had helped the British Commonwealth in China.

It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.

The official reason for England to join the war was the german march/invasion through Belgium, and this violation was due to the doctrine that Germany never expected to be able to win a war even at two fronts, let alone against the "rest" of the world.

The doctrine of the german military staff was to make a hopefully quick victory against France at all costs to buy time for gathering equipment for the war against Russia. England was not expected to support France and join the war, which certainly throws some light at the awareness and intelligence of german politics of the time. It indeed seems that England only waited for a chance to join a confrontation against Germany, the plans for the channel crossing and the "far blockade" were already done in 1907. As well Asquith seems to have intentionally used the declaration of war to keep his party at power in 1914.

The Kaiser: He was certainly a flaring monarch, as the rest of the royal world was at that time. The royal family in England preferred some distance to him because they did not want to be involved in Wilhelm's failure, and lose their own position in the British society. The US had already proven there was no real need for a expensive king or Kaiser in a modern society any more.

The Reichstag and a lot of Lobbyists as well as the "classic" military staff tried to influence Wilhelm, but it was not before the german chancellor left the stage in 1917 that he would listen to some military advisors - who seem to have been wrong for the whole time of the war right from the beginning.

Greetings,
Catfish

FliegerJG1 · 10 June 2008, 06:10 AM

Catfish,

This is an excellent summary! Many thanks for the information! Yes, it appears that the world was ready for a war and was waiting for the reason to start one. A review of this book when you are finished reading would be nice.

Blue skies,

FligerJG1

Catfish · 15 June 2008, 12:33 PM

Hello FliegerJG1,
i guess i will have to draw back my offer of writing a "short review", this is virtually impossible. There are so much foot notes and references - but as well the history told here is so different to what i thought i knew - and since this may well apply to some other people here it will be offensive to post it here to say at least. If this is true I can now somehow understand why the dictatorship from 1933 on was possible, and why so much people supported Hitler. They saw it as a revenge for the treaty of Versailles, and must have been still furious beyond reason after the losses of millions of people, and the circumstances that lead to, and ended WW1.

I will however post some observations:
What is equally disturbing is that there was so much rivalry within the german "government", which consisted of the "OHL" (Oberste Heeresleitung - Supreme Army Command), the "RMA" (Reichsmarineamt - Reichs Marine Ministry), the civil "Reichstag" with the chancellor Hollweg, the Kaiser, AND the german population, who was a voice in itself.
The final decision to declare and lead an "unrestricted U-boat war" (which b.t.w. England lead from day number one after the declaration of war to Germany) also seems to have been a result of those inner tensions, but mostly this cause was utter despair after the bitter consequences of the british hunger blockade. The german population demanded an instant stop of this blockade as well as anything that would England stop to continue with this war against civilians (causing 760.000 civilian casualties already in the winter of 1915/16), be it in making peace or end the war at all costs.

Reading the notes it is astonishing how long Germany refrained from a total war which England already lead since their declaration of war to Germany. Germany resembles a stubborn dumb donkey not realizing England's propaganda and numerous blows violating international law.

It really was an outraged population (along with a dumb RMA presenting wrong numbers that made a victory seem still possible) that demanded the unrestricted U-boat war, against good reason and the Reich's chancellor and the Kaiser, who were both against it - not only because it would violate international public law, and probably draw the US into the war on the Entente side, but also for humanitarian reasons - no joke.

Indeed the submarines helped thousands of survivors of sunk ships to reach the coast, took them aboard, towed lifeboats or halted another ship to take them aboard. In some cases they even refrained from sinking enemy merchant ships if the weather conditions would have made a survival of the crew impossible. This is the first time i read about this behaviour, and it was common practice until 1918 !

The most idiotic thing is Germany was on the brink of winning the tonnage war with this "cruiser war" done by the U-boats (which was accepted by public international law) stopping ships, searching them, and only sinking them in case of contraband or being an enemy ship or running a false flag as a "Q"-ship. The U-boats still did that when England began to arm their merchant ships. Indeed the hunger blockade was the reason for the unrestricted U-boat war, which then lead to the USA entering the war on the Entente side.

US president Wilson was close to support Germany against England to join a treaty for "freeing the seas" against an inhuman blockade directed at the civilian population of a nation, even more after winning the elections ("He helped us keep out of the war"). He intended to do so not only because of the Entente's violation of international public law, but in their spreading false propaganda to the still neutral nations of the world - what President Wilson most stringently condemned. It also becomes clear that this propaganda is still common "knowledge" and present in today's minds. This is not revisionist history, but becomes clear when you read all those notes of the ministries of foreign affairs, and how they tried to end a war already in 1915.

Greetings,
Cafish

Soakerman · 15 June 2008, 01:29 PM

seems like a nice book i read all about the world wars so i little bit more knoledge might be nice

NeilE · 16 June 2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hello,
i have not yet finished reading the book, but i could write a short review when i'm through.
As it is explained in this book William (or Wilhelm) the 2nd was not crazy, nor did he draw the rest of the world into a war. The situation in Europe and parts of Asia were on the brink of war regarding a lot of nations, indeed Wilhelm as the rest of the german military did not believe England would enter a war, and he himself most probably would not have without Sarajevo. After all he was a direct descendant of the British Royal family (and i always wondered where his spleen came from hrrrm

), and had helped the British Commonwealth in China.

It was France that had declared war to Germany, because of the Russian declaration of war towards Austro-Hungary. After the Austro-hungarian declaration of war against Serbia, Russia instantly declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany, having treaties to help in case of war.

The official reason for England to join the war was the german march/invasion through Belgium, and this violation was due to the doctrine that Germany never expected to be able to win a war even at two fronts, let alone against the "rest" of the world.

The doctrine of the german military staff was to make a hopefully quick victory against France at all costs to buy time for gathering equipment for the war against Russia. England was not expected to support France and join the war, which certainly throws some light at the awareness and intelligence of german politics of the time. It indeed seems that England only waited for a chance to join a confrontation against Germany, the plans for the channel crossing and the "far blockade" were already done in 1907. As well Asquith seems to have intentionally used the declaration of war to keep his party at power in 1914.

The Kaiser: He was certainly a flaring monarch, as the rest of the royal world was at that time. The royal family in England preferred some distance to him because they did not want to be involved in Wilhelm's failure, and lose their own position in the British society. The US had already proven there was no real need for a expensive king or Kaiser in a modern society any more.

The Reichstag and a lot of Lobbyists as well as the "classic" military staff tried to influence Wilhelm, but it was not before the german chancellor left the stage in 1917 that he would listen to some military advisors - who seem to have been wrong for the whole time of the war right from the beginning.

Greetings,
Catfish

This book is either highly revisionist, inaccurate (or both), or your reading of it is wrong. Great Britain had a treaty protecting Belgian sovereignty dating back to the 1850's - a fact the Germans certainly knew. This almost guaranteed that Great Britain would enter the war as part of the Entente. Austria-Hungary gave the Serbians a set of conditions following the Arch-Duke's assassination that they thought the Serbs would reject - in fact they accepted every clause bar one - and Austria-Hungary, with German approval declared war on Serbia on the basis of one failed clause. Russia then declared war on Austria to support Serbia. I think also there was a German declaration of war on Russia in there you omitted also. Basicallly the Germans and Austro-Hungarians gambled on being able to conduct a limited war on Serbia. This gamble was based on flawed logic, given the state of international treaties at the time.

The Kaiser and the German Government also gambled that they could deal with a war on two fronts through the medium of the flawed Von Moltke plan. It was always going to lead to the British declaration.

The humanitarian urges of the submarine crews is something that seems to have escaped my notice... they seem to have forgotten it when they sank passenger liners and hospital ships however....

Catfish · 17 June 2008, 04:52 AM

Hello,
you say the book is "revisionist". It quotes and explains things based on notes from the foreign offices as well as evidence of what really happened. If you define "revisionist" as something that does not fit into your point of view it most probably is.
I will not defend the book because it speaks for itself. That is exactly what i meant with offending people who either don't know what happened or still live in "their" history of propaganda. The major war England won most obviously is the propaganda war, as it is still present in the minds of today.

" ...Great Britain had a treaty protecting Belgian sovereignty dating back to the 1850's - a fact the Germans certainly knew. ..."

I do not know about the special circumstances of this treaty, but every nation of the time had treaties, one of those was the one Germany had with Austro-Hungary. Russia had a treaty to support Serbia, and declared war to Austro-Hungary, and thus to Germany. Anyway Germany did not intend to go to war against France, or England.
But there is a speech from Asquith, where he describes Germany as "Prussia", which would not be a state, but an army, and that it would have to be destroyed and beaten at all costs. This was in 1914 before France declared war to Germany.
You wrote regarding a single war against Serbia
" ...This gamble was based on flawed logic, given the state of international treaties at the time. ..."
You are certainly right here. However no one thought at this time that England would enter a war, or France, because of Serbia, or Russia. The US hesitated because of Russia and Japan, and its actions in China.

" ...The Kaiser and the German Government also gambled that they could deal with a war on two fronts through the medium of the flawed Von Moltke plan. It was always going to lead to the British declaration. ..."

This is definitely wrong. The Moltke you refer to had literally tears in his eyes when he contacted the Kaiser saying literally " ... we can not win a victory in a two-front war, and i strongly advise the Kaiser to instantly negotiate a peace, because all could end in an international war no one can want ...". The plan you seem to refer to is the "von Schlieffen - plan", and it was the only chance Germany had at all. It could not wait for France and England to close in to the german border with a Russian front. Things got even worse when Romania declared war to Austro-Hungary, and Germany.

" ... The humanitarian urges of the submarine crews is something that seems to have escaped my notice... they seem to have forgotten it when they sank passenger liners and hospital ships however.... ..."

"They" did sink one passenger liner, the Lusitania, by accident. The later "Arabica"(?) was a troop ship. As it later turned out the Lusitania indeed carried ammunition, and was even on the Navy roll as a naval vessel and an armed auxiliary cruiser (!) of the Royal Navy. The U-boat commander did not know this though, it was an accident. Apart from that passenger liners and particularly hospital ships were a "no" for U-boats, even during the so-called "unrestricted" U-boat war that only took place for a relatively short time. American liners following negotiated corridors were not attacked, as well as british civil liners "regardless of position", as long as they were no auxiliary cruisers which carried troops to the continent, and were armed.

Even then the U-boat commanders mostly refrained from attacking those ships. There is one case in which a german U-boat (again accidently) attacked a hospital ship, and the following atrocity of the commander in charge was a direct short-circuit - he had realized his error and did not want anyone to know about it. His own crew was against him, and this led to a mutiny that ended in a court martial.

There were some exceptions, but german U-boats indeed helped thousands of survivors of sunken ships to reach the coast, it was certainly forbidden to speak about it on the Entente side, and crews and commanders of the boats thought of it as self-evident. England told the US, other neutral states and its own population the whole time how Germany was abusing international public law, sinking helpless hospital ships, gunning down survivors etc., which simply was a lie. England did that especially to divert from their own violation of international public law with the "Far blockade".

This is the propaganda i spoke about right in the beginning. I can quote the numerous passages, from german orders for the U-boat commanders as witness reports and the reaction of president Wilson, who saw what was really going on. But before you destroy someone you have to dehumanize him. I cannot blame you, it is what i learned at school, however what the book does is present orders and diplomatic notes, as well as US american documents which show what the USA thought about it.
What i do not understand is the level of hate and contemptousness England held against Germany even before the war. Really, i ask you what had happened ?

I will continue to write about some passages as i see fit, and i can certainly quote all this material, but it would need time, and i would have to translate so much.

Thanks and greetings,
Kai

gilles · 17 June 2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

This was in 1914 before France declared war to Germany.

Is this really written in your book?

crankcase · 17 June 2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

....
This is the propaganda i spoke about right in the beginning. I can quote the numerous passages, from german orders for the U-boat commanders as witness reports and the reaction of president Wilson, who saw what was really going on....

This is interesting. I recall reading that the stories of German troops bayoneting belgian babies were also largely fabrications. useful work, based on statistics as well as anecdotes, may enlighten us.

The main problem, as everyone knows, is that the behavior of the Nazis in WW2 makes all the anti-german propaganda in WW1 believable. this is a fallacy which has poisoned WW1 historiography. (danke schoen herr hitler!)
marc