War is Declared

[StephenT]

Russia had no business standing up to Serbian or any such rights as Russia had swallowed a dozen or more countries in the previous 100 odd years.

Russia had exactly as much (or as little) right to defend Serbia as Austria did to invade them. (and remember, Austria had also swallowed plenty of countries in the past century - Venice, Poland, Bosnia among others.)

Put aside your modern concepts of international morality and think in terms of early-C20 power politics, the way people back then did. Russia considered the Balkans to be part of its sphere of influence,. So did Austria-Hungary. Anything either power did to change the status quo would be forcibly opposed by the other. Austria's ultimatum to Serbia was a piece of high-stakes brinkmanship that blew up in their faces when Russia didn't back down.

A Great Power's Heir being shot was serious business and this move was supported by the Serbian Prime Minister and senior Army Officers of Serbia who were also plotting to topple AH and establish an empire of the South Slavs- this was the key to Balkan War I.

The Serbian prime minister knew nothing about the assassination. He'd heard a vague rumour that Narodna Obrana had smuggled some agents over the border into Bosnia, and sent the Austrian government a warning. That's all.

Russia did not border Serbia but AH did and so it wanted to act against the Serbs to punish them for their misdeeds.

No. Austria had already decided to use the assassination as an excuse to crush Serbia before they even knew there was any connection between Princip and the Serbs.

Russia might not border Serbia, but they shared a religion (Orthodox Christianity) and had extremely similar languages; they were culturally very close.

Russians mobilised in late July secretly against Germany and Austria and then pretended as if no such orders were given (German spies including Walther Nicolai - "more famous in WW2 as spy chief" reported the Russian Mobilization to the German General Staff around 26-27 July)

Not correct. Russia ordered mobilisation on 30 July at 18:00, to begin on 4 August. This was after Austria had already declared war on Serbia and started to mobilise its own army.

It's true that they'd taken a few precautions beforehand - cancelled officers' leave, put sentries on border posts, etc - but the Germans were doing exactly the same thing. It's rank hypocrisy for the Germans to blame the Russians for provoking a crisis for doing exactly what they were doing themselves. Though maybe the Germans panicked at the idea that the Russians were doing anything at all with their army, and overstated what was happening.

; MOBILIZATION was WAR in EUROPE 1914

There were plenty of examples of mobilisation not meaning war. During the Balkan Crisis both Austria-Hungary and Russia had begun mobilisation, but the diplomats found a last-minute solution and the armies stood down again. For that matter, in July 1914 the nations of Switzerland, Netherlands and Denmark all mobilised, yet none of them joined the war. Mobilisation did not mean war.

Unless, that is, you were Germany and the only military plan you had involved launching an immediate attack on France via Belgium, the instant you realised that Russia was even thinking about mobilising.

The war began because every other country - France, Russia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Italy - could mobilise their army but keep it on alert behind the frontier while the diplomats tried for one last compromise. The French Army in July 1914 even ordered their troops to pull back and leave a 10-kilometre undefended strip along the border, to prevent any incident where French troops might accidentally stray over the frontier into Germany and provoke an incident.

Only in Germany did the plan say "No time to wait: invade Belgium as soon as Russia starts to mobilise!"

[theone1]

" You may be correct, but in English the term Kaiser is reserved for the German Emperor. I may be wrong, but I do not think that anyone thought of the Austrian Emperor when you claimed that lots of Slavs fought for the Kaiser. "

Most of us are not Anglo Saxons and Kaiser meaning Emperor ; if a Kaiser has lot of Slavs this is Franz Joseph of Austria with Poles, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats and Czech.

You forgot Slovenes and Bosniaks

[Shri]

Russia had exactly as much (or as little) right to defend Serbia as Austria did to invade them. (and remember, Austria had also swallowed plenty of countries in the past century - Venice, Poland, Bosnia among others.)

Put aside your modern concepts of international morality and think in terms of early-C20 power politics, the way people back then did. Russia considered the Balkans to be part of its sphere of influence,. So did Austria-Hungary. Anything either power did to change the status quo would be forcibly opposed by the other. Austria's ultimatum to Serbia was a piece of high-stakes brinkmanship that blew up in their faces when Russia didn't back down.

Well, i never disputed the fact of Germany or Austria being empires, instead i started my argument with the fact that- This was the age of empires, Russian and British Empires were much much larger than any empires and contained a lot more disgruntled subjects. That was my point.

The Serbian prime minister knew nothing about the assassination. He'd heard a vague rumour that Narodna Obrana had smuggled some agents over the border into Bosnia, and sent the Austrian government a warning. That's all.

No. Austria had already decided to use the assassination as an excuse to crush Serbia before they even knew there was any connection between Princip and the Serbs.

Not true, the Serbs had been planning and trying these kind of incidents for some time, the Black Hand's top men were Senior Army Officers and the Prime Minister was very much in the loop. Remember in 1904 or something, the Serbs killed their Monarch and his family. The UK was initially very appalled and several Royal Houses were in support of the Habsburgs, the mistake of the Habsburg was not that they declared War on 28th July but that they dithered for 3 weeks before declaring war. War if declared in first week of July would have been sympathetic in the eyes of most Monarchies after all they were all relatives.

Russia might not border Serbia, but they shared a religion (Orthodox Christianity) and had extremely similar languages; they were culturally very close.

Not correct. Russia ordered mobilisation on 30 July at 18:00, to begin on 4 August. This was after Austria had already declared war on Serbia and started to mobilise its own army.

It's true that they'd taken a few precautions beforehand - cancelled officers' leave, put sentries on border posts, etc - but the Germans were doing exactly the same thing. It's rank hypocrisy for the Germans to blame the Russians for provoking a crisis for doing exactly what they were doing themselves. Though maybe the Germans panicked at the idea that the Russians were doing anything at all with their army, and overstated what was happening.

There were plenty of examples of mobilisation not meaning war. During the Balkan Crisis both Austria-Hungary and Russia had begun mobilisation, but the diplomats found a last-minute solution and the armies stood down again. For that matter, in July 1914 the nations of Switzerland, Netherlands and Denmark all mobilised, yet none of them joined the war. Mobilisation did not mean war.

Unless, that is, you were Germany and the only military plan you had involved launching an immediate attack on France via Belgium, the instant you realised that Russia was even thinking about mobilising.

The war began because every other country - France, Russia, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Italy - could mobilise their army but keep it on alert behind the frontier while the diplomats tried for one last compromise. The French Army in July 1914 even ordered their troops to pull back and leave a 10-kilometre undefended strip along the border, to prevent any incident where French troops might accidentally stray over the frontier into Germany and provoke an incident.

Only in Germany did the plan say "No time to wait: invade Belgium as soon as Russia starts to mobilise!"

Now we are shifting the Goal Post to Russian Pan Slavism etc. this is a very long topic and i might need 30 pages to reply on the Pan Slav tendencies of the Russian court, its implications etc. in the latter part of the 19th century.
Russians had activated their divisions in Poland and Ukraine before 26th July, this was 2/5th of the Army i.e. 800000 troops. Now put this figure against the Austrian Army of 600000 and the Germany Army of 900000- most of which would be going west and you can see that it wasn't idle panic.
Germany of course did not have time- the alternative was not to mobilise and lose, by counter mobilisation you had an outside chance of victory.
The Entente could wait as they outnumbered and outgunned and thoroughly encircled their opponents, the CP cannot. At the first flash of Movement you have to move and hit fast before it becomes a War of Attrition.

P.S.: Pre- War i.e. 1914 no one knew the Russian Army was so terrible that a single German Active Corps would be able to defend a whole Russian Army. Such lop sided effects were not known to any one in the World.
Russian Peacetime army was 2 Million which was more than the Armies of the CP put together and their total artillery was almost equal to the German Artillery.
Russian Military Budget was nearly equal to the German One.
Now what does all this suggest to the General Staff in Berlin- If WAR comes we lose badly, so if we do nothing and wait for parlor game niceties we lose badly, if enemy moves first we lose badly, Russia had mobilised on 26th about half its army more than enough in the situation; strike and die or wait and perish were the only options.

[StephenT]

Well, i never disputed the fact of Germany or Austria being empires, instead i started my argument with the fact that- This was the age of empires, Russian and British Empires were much much larger than any empires and contained a lot more disgruntled subjects. That was my point.

"Well, your country started a war of aggression against someone else 60 years ago, so you've no right to complain if I start one against you now" isn't much of an argument.

Not true, the Serbs had been planning and trying these kind of incidents for some time, the Black Hand's top men were Senior Army Officers and the Prime Minister was very much in the loop.

Can you provide any evidence that Nikola Pasic was "in the loop", since every book I 've read on the subject says that he wasn't?

The Black Hand's top man was a colonel, and there was also a major. That's not especially senior, though Apis did have political influence. The assassination in Sarajevo wasn't planned by the Serbs at all; it was planned by citizens of Austria-Hungary. One of those students knew a member of the Black Hand in Belgrade and asked him if he could let them have some bombs; the Black Hand member checked with his boss then said, "Sure, here you go; and talk to these people in the border patrol who will help smuggle you back into Bosnia". That was the extent of Serbian involvement.

The UK was initially very appalled and several Royal Houses were in support of the Habsburgs, the mistake of the Habsburg was not that they declared War on 28th July but that they dithered for 3 weeks before declaring war. War if declared in first week of July would have been sympathetic in the eyes of most Monarchies after all they were all relatives.

Everybody was appalled at the assassination - even the Serbs. It wasn't until several weeks later that news that people in Serbia had been involved with the incident emerged, so yes, if Austria-Hungary had declared war on Serbia immediately, without waiting for evidence, there would have been outrage.

The newspapers in Austria-Hungary did immediately start shouting for war with Serbia, and there were riots against ethnic Serbs within Austria-Hungary. The reaction of most other European countries (except Germany) was that if it were to be proven that Serbia had a hand in the assassination, the Austrians would be justified in demanding some form of compensation from them. Nobody, however (except Germany), believed that the Austrian government would do something so stupid as to actually declare war on Serbia, thus triggering a war with Russia and an inevitable European war.

Russians had activated their divisions in Poland and Ukraine before 26th July, this was 2/5th of the Army i.e. 800000 troops. Now put this figure against the Austrian Army of 600000 and the Germany Army of 900000- most of which would be going west and you can see that it wasn't idle panic.

This is simply not true.

Russia ordered the 'Period Preparatory to War' on 26 July. This entailed garrisoning fortresses and manning frontier posts, mining harbours, and gathering horses and wagons together. It did not involve calling up reservists or assembling troops at their staging posts, and if a book you've read calls it 'mobilisation' then it was deceiving you.

The decision to mobilise was taken in Russia on 28 July, after the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. The Tsar signed the decree the following morning, 29 July. At 22:00 St Petersburg time that evening, the Tsar changed his mind and cancelled the mobilisation, ordering a partial mobilisation in the south only. The order went out at midnight. The following day, 30 July, the generals convinved the Tsar to reverse his decision and order full mobilisation instead.

As for your numbers, the Russian army prior to mobilisation had a strength of 1,400,000, not the two million you're claiming. They did have plans to increase the army size by the years 1917-20, but those plans had only just been announced and certainly weren't implemented. A lot of those troops were stationed along Russia's long, troubled borders in the Caucasus and Central Asia and the Far East.

Germany of course did not have time- the alternative was not to mobilise and lose, by counter mobilisation you had an outside chance of victory.
The Entente could wait as they outnumbered and outgunned and thoroughly encircled their opponents, the CP cannot. At the first flash of Movement you have to move and hit fast before it becomes a War of Attrition.

Yes, but that's only true if you've already decided that war is inevitable. Every other country was prepared to negotiate. Britain proposed a conference where France would speak for Russia and Germany would speak for Austria, and Britain and Italy would hold the ring. Russia was quite willing to agree to that. Even Austria expressed at least some willingness. But Germany rejected the idea and attacked instead.

P.S.: Pre- War i.e. 1914 no one knew the Russian Army was so terrible that a single German Active Corps would be able to defend a whole Russian Army. Such lop sided effects were not known to any one in the World.

Everybody knew that the Russian army would take weeks or even months to assemble and be ready for war. That meant that a decision by Russia to mobilise still left plenty of time for a diplomatic solution to be found first - assuming you actually wanted a diplomatic solution.

Incidentally, the reason the Russian Army performed so poorly at Tannenburg was not because they were "so terrible", but because they were trying to help the French by launching an unprepared attack while they were still only half-mobilised. Among other things, that meant that the army's codebooks were still locked in a safe in Minsk, and so they had to send uncoded radio messages. The Germans intercepted them and discovered the exact locations and movements of the Russian troops and so won a great victory.

Field Marshal Conrad certainly wouldn't agree that the Russian army was 'terrible', considering that in just two weeks of fighting in September 1914 it managed to destroy one-third of the entire Austro-Hungarian army and send the remainder routing back in panic, surrendering an entire province including the Monarchy's fourth-largest city.

Now what does all this suggest to the General Staff in Berlin- If WAR comes we lose badly, so if we do nothing and wait for parlor game niceties we lose badly, if enemy moves first we lose badly, Russia had mobilised on 26th about half its army more than enough in the situation; strike and die or wait and perish were the only options.

It only suggests that if you've decided in advance that there's going to be a war, and any talk of a compromise or a negotiated solution is out of the question.

Incidentally, by dismissing diplomacy as "parlor game niceties" you've exactly captured the attitude of the German military faction who triggered the war; so well done on that account!

[Shri]

"Well, your country started a war of aggression against someone else 60 years ago, so you've no right to complain if I start one against you now" isn't much of an argument.

But this was exactly the argument of the FRENCH pre 1914 and desire for REVANCHE stemmed from their loss in 1870.
Bismarck had destroyed the old system of wishy-washy dealings and again put a German Monarch in the center of European Power as it always was. The Habsburgs of course and the Hohenstaufens before them were the center of that power for hundred of years till the 30 year war and then suddenly there was a vacuum in Europe.
In came France and Russia as no vacuum stays a vacuum forever and ended up dividing the continent into 2 halves, each controlling one half.
Bismarck destroyed this system in his long and successful reign, Wilhelm II was mentally imbalanced and did not understand this and dropped Bismarck and his system into the well.


The Black Hand's top man was a colonel, and there was also a major. That's not especially senior, though Apis did have political influence. The assassination in Sarajevo wasn't planned by the Serbs at all; it was planned by citizens of Austria-Hungary. One of those students knew a member of the Black Hand in Belgrade and asked him if he could let them have some bombs; the Black Hand member checked with his boss then said, "Sure, here you go; and talk to these people in the border patrol who will help smuggle you back into Bosnia". That was the extent of Serbian involvement.


Yes, he was a Col. one of the 40 or so full Colonels in Serbia but APIS had killed the Serbian King and not faced any consequences (King and his family were thrown from the balcony in 1904 if i remember right). So to say no one knew about APIS or not aware of his plot is childish. All knew and purposely turned a blind eye so that they could lie with a straight face later in the "DIPLOMATIC Conferences".



This is simply not true.
Russia ordered the 'Period Preparatory to War' on 26 July. This entailed garrisoning fortresses and manning frontier posts, mining harbours, and gathering horses and wagons together. It did not involve calling up reservists or assembling troops at their staging posts, and if a book you've read calls it 'mobilisation' then it was deceiving you.
The decision to mobilise was taken in Russia on 28 July, after the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. The Tsar signed the decree the following morning, 29 July. At 22:00 St Petersburg time that evening, the Tsar changed his mind and cancelled the mobilisation, ordering a partial mobilisation in the south only. The order went out at midnight. The following day, 30 July, the generals convinved the Tsar to reverse his decision and order full mobilisation instead. As for your numbers, the Russian army prior to mobilisation had a strength of 1,400,000, not the two million you're claiming. They did have plans to increase the army size by the years 1917-20, but those plans had only just been announced and certainly weren't implemented. A lot of those troops were stationed along Russia's long, troubled borders in the Caucasus and Central Asia and the Far East.

Russia had 155 infantry + 35 Cavalry, 1 infantry division was 15000 men and a Cavalry was 4000 men, i think you can do the math. You will get 2 Million + which will be the strength on Mobilization. Of course figure of 1.4 Million is agreed as part of the army was in Far East and Transcaucasia and Turkestan.. these divisions came only in late 1914. German + Austrian armies in 1914 was less than 1.5 Million, so even taking 1.4 million figure that is huge.
Germany mobilised 2 days after Russia, so how can Russian mobilization be against Germany??


Everybody knew that the Russian army would take weeks or even months to assemble and be ready for war. That meant that a decision by Russia to mobilise still left plenty of time for a diplomatic solution to be found first - assuming you actually wanted a diplomatic solution.
Incidentally, the reason the Russian Army performed so poorly at Tannenburg was not because they were "so terrible", but because they were trying to help the French by launching an unprepared attack while they were still only half-mobilised. Among other things, that meant that the army's codebooks were still locked in a safe in Minsk, and so they had to send uncoded radio messages. The Germans intercepted them and discovered the exact locations and movements of the Russian troops and so won a great victory.
Field Marshal Conrad certainly wouldn't agree that the Russian army was 'terrible', considering that in just two weeks of fighting in September 1914 it managed to destroy one-third of the entire Austro-Hungarian army and send the remainder routing back in panic, surrendering an entire province including the Monarchy's fourth-largest city.

CONRAD plan was so bad, Conrad himself said- If FRANZ FERDINAND were alive i would have been shot dead.
In the east Austrian losses were about 4 Million in 3.5 years, German losses 0.4 million and Russian at 8 million.
Russian:Austrian battles were one of attrition and in September October Russian losses were almost equal to Austrian, same in Brusilov Offensive - equal losses.
Problem was they lost 8-10 times more men fighting Germans and this made them lose the war. In almost each individual battle, TANNENBERG, MASURIAN LAKES< GORLICE TARNOW, NAROCH, RIGA, KERENSKY etc.. losses were 8-10 times of German losses. No one dreamt this before the war.


It only suggests that if you've decided in advance that there's going to be a war, and any talk of a compromise or a negotiated solution is out of the question.
Incidentally, by dismissing diplomacy as "parlor game niceties" you've exactly captured the attitude of the German military faction who triggered the war; so well done on that account!

There was no options of conferences if one person mobilizes and other doesn't, German mobilization was WAR, there was no going back.

[StephenT]

Yes, he was a Col. one of the 40 or so full Colonels in Serbia but APIS had killed the Serbian King and not faced any consequences (King and his family were thrown from the balcony in 1904 if i remember right). So to say no one knew about APIS or not aware of his plot is childish. All knew and purposely turned a blind eye so that they could lie with a straight face later in the "DIPLOMATIC Conferences".

I realise this discussion is getting heated but please don't sink to personal insults ('childish') against me.

The Black Hand was a secret society. It was formed out of a public organisation, Narodna Obrana, so the government might well have known that Apis was in NA - and of course they knew about his role in the 1903 coup (it was 1903, not 1904) - but that doesn't mean that Pasic knew he was in the Black Hand as well. It cetainly doesn't mean that Pasic was 'in the loop' and part of their decision-making process, nor does it mean that Apis consulted with him on what his plans were. Just because Dimitrijević and Pasic were both Serbian doesn't automatically mean they knew everything the other knew.

And remember, it was an Austro-Hungarian plot that received assistance from a Serbian secret society, not a Serbian plot.

Russia had 155 infantry + 35 Cavalry, 1 infantry division was 15000 men and a Cavalry was 4000 men, i think you can do the math.

Do you know that during peacetime, many of those divisions were understrength cadres, and they were only brought up to full wartime strength after mobilisation, when the reservists were called up from their civilian jobs?

Russia's peacetime army strength in July 1914 was 1,400,000. On mobilisation they called up 3,400,000 reservists, giving a mobilised strength (45 days after war began) of just under 5 million. You don't need to calculate that, the number's readily available in multiple sources.

That 1.4 million is the total. They actually only had about 800,000 on the border with Germany and Austria-Hungary, the rest were spread around the Russian Empire.

Germany mobilised 2 days after Russia, so how can Russian mobilization be against Germany??

Russia began mobilising because Austria-Hungary began mobilising, not directly because of Germany. However, they knew that Germany could mobilise ten or twenty times faster than they could, and they were (justifiably) terrified of a German preemptive attack before they were ready. Hence the decision to mobilise the entire army, not just the southern military districts.

You also need to remember that this was before the days of Twitter and CNN. News of what other countries were doing came in by fits and starts, through telegrams and despatches and intelligence reports. These were often delayed - to give a specific example, if I remember correctly the British government first learned about Russian full mobilisation from the Germans, because the telegram from St Petersburg announcing the fact was delayed at the telegraph office and arrived a day late. Of course, the British weren't to know if the Germans were telling the truth or lying, until the confirmation arrived the next day. That sort of uncertainty does help to explain how the July Crisis could happen at all, but it also means that using hindsight to assign blame is a risky business.

Russian:Austrian battles were one of attrition

No, the Russians outmanoeuvred the Austrians through better generalship (or pehaps fairer to say, worse Austrian generalship). It wasn't a head-on slugging match. Unfortunately for them, the Russian army lacked the tactical flexibility of the Germans, so after their victory in Galicia they let the Austrians escape instead of trapping them and destroying them utterly.

There was no options of conferences if one person mobilizes and other doesn't, German mobilization was WAR, there was no going back.

German mobilisation "was war" only because the German leadership made that choice. It wasn't some law of nature or inescapable destiny. The Germans decided that they preferred war to the idea of diplomatic compromise or negotiation.

[Shri]

I realise this discussion is getting heated but please don't sink to personal insults ('childish') against me. The Black Hand was a secret society. It was formed out of a public organisation, Narodna Obrana, so the government might well have known that Apis was in NA - and of course they knew about his role in the 1903 coup (it was 1903, not 1904) - but that doesn't mean that Pasic knew he was in the Black Hand as well. It cetainly doesn't mean that Pasic was 'in the loop' and part of their decision-making process, nor does it mean that Apis consulted with him on what his plans were. Just because Dimitrijević and Pasic were both Serbian doesn't automatically mean they knew everything the other knew. And remember, it was an Austro-Hungarian plot that received assistance from a Serbian secret society, not a Serbian plot.

Well, sorry for the heated argument and the remark.
Also thanks to point out it was in 1903, i think i got my year mixed up.
But my basic point remains- Serbia was trying hard to form an empire of the South Slavs, they had gobbled up Macedonia in 1911-12, the Macedonians were forced to tell they were Serbs. Also Montenegro which was Serbia's ally was Gobbled up after the Great War. Serbia was a small country in 1914 with a war time army of 400000 and the total number of Senior Officers was less than 100. In such countries usually the "ELITE" know each other and also the gossip. This is what i meant to convey by the term 'childish' (i repeat again not an insult to you in any way, i am sorry it turned out so).


Russian army of 155 Infantry + 35 Cavalry is from their Military districts- 13 in all (this number is not from thin air and can be easily verified will mail the links), now each of them in War time formed roughly 1 army, a few had extra divisions and plus the Imperial Guard were separate. The 6 western Military Districts of Poland, Kovno, Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg etc were mobilised in the first phase and this was possible due to the military reform of the much hated SUKHOMLINOV, this enabled Russia to have 6 field armies just 3 weeks after mobilisation.


Again Russian mobilisation i even understand the Tsar himself was unaware when his cousin the Kaiser asked about it on the 28th (Tsar was quite dense in his head and it is very much possible he didn't know and hence the orders are dated on later dates) but German Military intelligence on the Eastern Front was very good (it was terrible in the west i know) and gleaned this information very early.


As for mobilization and conferences- let me state one fact, China just before the Sino-Indian War of 1962 had massed soldiers on the border, the Indian Military Intelligence Officers (who had old ties in Tibet due to British India and also due to socio- cultural reasons) warned the then imbecile PM about it, the PM contacted the Chinese who denied it (just like the Tsar did to the Kaiser) - result ---- DISASTER on the front 1 week later.

German General Staff had 2 choices-
1. Believe their competent military intelligence and mobilise and push through France when they still had an outside chance of victory or
2. Believe their imbecile diplomats who had squandered Bismarck's strong position in the preceding 25 years and end up getting their a** handed to them in late 1914 when the Russians pushed through Prussia and Silesia and the French through Alsace-Lorraine.

[StephenT]

Serbia might have been a small country, but it was also a country where political disputes often ended in murder, partisan bands wandered the highlands, and disgruntled war veterans with access to army-surplus weapons engaged in plots with little reference to the central government.

I've access to several written sources about the Russian army in the First World War, thanks. What I think you've missed in your calculations is that the Russian regular army would more than double in size upon mobilisation - a peacetime battalion contained 455 men, its wartime strength was 976 men. Then further reservists would be used to make up additional, new Second Wave divisions. Simply adding up the number of divisions and multiplying by their full wartime strength to get the size of the pre-mobilisation army doesn't work.

Actually, from my reading (P J Haythornthwaite, The World War One Sourcebook, Arms and Armour Press (London) 1996; J Ellis & M Cox, The World War I Databook, Aurum Press (London) 2001) the peacetime Russian army following the 1910 reforms had 70 infantry divisions, not 155. (Three Guards divisions, four Grenadier divisions, 11 Siberian Rifle divisions, 52 Infantry divisions). They also had 22 independent brigades - four Finnish, six Turkestan, two Caucasus, one Cossack, and a few more. They then mobilised 35 divisions in the Second Wave. In spring 1915 a further 28 Third Wave divisions were raised using older men from the Opolchenie (militia).

Tsar Nicholas might not have been very bright, but he was an autocrat who insisted on making all important decisions himself. There's a famous story that when, after dithering for two days, he finally gave the order to mobilise, the Foreign Minister passed on those orders to the Chief of Staff and advised him to "smash his telephone" so that the Tsar couldn't countermand the order once again. That wouldn't make sense if the army had already been mobilising for a week already, as you allege.

What I think happened, to be fair, is that German spies heard news of Russia's initial military preparations (as I described them before; they were no different to what the Germans themselves were doing), but they panicked and exaggerated the extent of them far beyond what the Russians were actually doing. And so "the Russians are cancelling leave and manning their border posts" (true) turned into "The Russian are mobilising already!!!" (false).

You're trying to defend the German General Staff by saying they had "no choice", but the facts simply don't bear that out. Everybody was willing to negotiate and compromise, except for them - and that was their choice. The fact that they were paranoid doesn't make them justified.

[Shri]

Russia began mobilising because Austria-Hungary began mobilising, not directly because of Germany. However, they knew that Germany could mobilise ten or twenty times faster than they could, and they were (justifiably) terrified of a German preemptive attack before they were ready. Hence the decision to mobilise the entire army, not just the southern military districts.

Well, in your readings i think you have missed or forgotten one small part but important, namely-
French Intelligence by 1910 had understood and quite correctly that the main force would be used to attack France and minimal forces will be used to defend Prussia itself against Russia (in fact Gen. Michel of France had prepared a plan called Plan XIII around 1910 to counter this push, but he was dismissed as that plan was too defensive and forced France to give up territory and in the end- Foch and Castelnau's disastrous Plan XVII was adopted by the French), this was the reason for those massive French Loans post 1910 for building Railways into Poland so that the Russians will attack.
DANILOV the Quarter Master had prepared a plan for 4 armies attacking Germany, but the Russians thought that Austria needs to be prioritized (Austrian plans of early 1900's through Col. Redl had come to the Russians, but Conrad had changed it slightly around 1911-1912 - - that is why initially the Russians had strengthened the 3rd army which was attacking Lemberg and weakened the 4th Army attacking Przesmyl).
Fears of German Invasion of Russia were lost post 1905, real fears was gone when Von Waldersee was sacked for asking pre-emptive War in 1897 ; no other General wanted to invade Russia and even the Russians knew this post 1905.

[havi]

Now sirs u r saying that there was Finnish regiments in tsar army, well their wasn't Finnish tsar army has been dismissed and Finnish regiments where changed to Russian regulars in year 1905, the Finns had relieved of military service of tsar army after that. Yes there where volunteers in Russian army generals even but not a single battalion of finss fought with the oppressor of Russia he wasn't a liked men in here.. The only all-Finnish battalion did fight for Die Kaiser in east front of ww1

[minipol]

As I live in Belgium just behind the frontline (the wounded Germans were brought back to the village I live in), I had an early interest in WWI.
Everywhere you drive around here, you have large WWI cemeteries.
And a very short drive from my home and I'm on the Ypres salient.
Makes you understand the importance of the salient.

Anyway, I read in this thread about the rape of Belgium. And it was in no way exagerated. The Germans were very cruel because their supperiors warned the troops way in advance
of franc tireurs, but that was a myth. They killed loads of people, burned the Leuven library with had very old books, and random killing took place in a lot of towns.
During the war, they dismantled or destroyed lot's of industry and basically crippled Belgium.
Some figures from a documentary that is currently airing over here: coal industry was down by 80%, steel industry by 90%.
We were the 5th (!!) industry at the time, after the war, we never recovered.
During the war it was very hard for the people left behind, as the Germans really took everything.

Another fact not very well know is the construction of an electric fence between Belgium and the Netherlands to prevent Belgian young men to get to the front via the Netherlands - England - France.
It also stopped (or try to stop) mail traffic and so on. The fence was 2000 volts and claimed a lot of casualties.
Electricity was not well known in the region and people didn't believe a wire could kill them.
When somebody was killed when trying to get to the Netherlands, sometimes the whole village had to come and look at the mutilated bodies.
Exact figures are not known but the latest figures are between 1500 - 2000 dead.
Compared to the Berlin wall, that's a lot of casualties.
Not much compared to the soldier casualties, but it had a big impact on the people who lived in the occupied part of Belgium.

We still dig up tons and tons of ammo (bullets, grenades, shells, gas shells) to this very day, and only a few years back a new installation was built to dispose of all that ammo.
A 100 years later.... And every year, we have people dying from hitting old ammo.
Big parts of the province of West Flanders are battlefields. There are still a lot of burried soldiers they never recovered.