Talk:Septemberprogramm

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / European / German / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

See too:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=RYA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=septemberprogram&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

LeadSongDog come howl 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if it was published for a narrow readership. But how narrow, and how did it get into the hands of the Allied propaganda offices soon after?86.46.225.38 (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a secret document that was not revealed until after the war ended. Rjensen (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Kurt Riezler? --152.78.165.36 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what source was the list of war goals, which appears in this article, obtained?

I have read the original German-language version of the Septemberprogramm:

http://www.deuframat.de/de/konflikte/krieg-und-aussoehnung/der-erste-weltkrieg-im-kollektiven-gedaechtnis-der-deutschen-und-der-franzosen/deutsche-und-franzoesische-kriegsziele/kriegsziele-deutschlands.html

which was copied from: Fritz Fischer, Griff nach der Weltmacht. Die Kriegszielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914/18 [Grab for world power: the politics of war objectives in imperial Germany 1914-1918] (1961), Düsseldorf, Germany: Droste 1984, pp. 93 ff.

This Septemberprogramm does NOT include:

(1) "France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt."

The document does mention an indemnity: "Ferner eine in Raten zahlbare Kriegsentschädigung; sie muß so hoch sein, dass Frankreich nicht imstande ist, in den nächsten achtzehn bis zwanzig Jahren erhebliche Mittel für Rüstung anzuwenden." (Furthermore, an indemnity, payable in installments ; it must be so high that France is not in a position to use substantial means for armaments during the next 18 – 20 years.) But there's no mention of the amount, veterans, or the German national debt.

(2) The indemnity would " … make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire."

Wrong. The Septemberprogramm suggested a trade treaty that would produce this result:

"Des weiteren: ein Handelsvertrag, der Frankreich in wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeit von Deutschland bringt, es zu unserem Exportland macht, und es ermöglicht, den englischen Handel in Frankreich auszuschalten." (Furthermore: a trade treaty, which brings France into economic dependency on Germany ; it [would] make [France] our country for exports ; and it [would] make possible excluding English trade from France.)

(3) "Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time"." And: "The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony"[citation needed] in world affairs was to end."

Wrong again. This is what the Septemberprogramm actually says: "Die Frage der kolonialen Erwerbungen, unter denen in erster Linie die Schaffung eines zusammenhängenden mittelafrikanischen Kolonialreichs anzustreben ist, desgleichen die Rußland gegenüber zu erreichenden Ziele werden später geprüft." (The question of colonial acquisitions, among which first and foremost to be sought is the creation of a contiguous middle African colonial empire, (likewise Russia) vis-à-vis objectives to be attained, will be considered later.) There's no decision about taking Russian territory, or keeping that territory in perpetuity, or the African empire's extending across Africa, or its being created at the expense of French and Belgian territories, or refraining from taking British territory, or ending British hegemony. Instead, the document states that such topics will be considered later.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will see them in Barbara Tuchman's book, in the reference list. She won the Pulitzer Prize with it, but also wrote from a very anti-Prussian-militarist point of view. Must drag my copy out again.78.16.52.192 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Tuchman is not a reliable source or unbiased historian. Yes, she did receive the Pulitzer price (so did Walter Duranty from the NY-Times, who hushed up the widespread famine (1930–1933) in the USSR, most particularly the Holodomor). Tuchman interjects her own opinions and often without giving any reference. Among other reasons likely because her own grandfather, Henry Morgenthau was deeply involved in the politics of this time, fe. as a supporter of Woodrow Wilson (who had lied to his voters about don't getting the US involved in European wars). And her uncle Henry Morgenthau Jr. (US-State Secretary of Treasury), proposed the so called Morgenthau Plan to deindustrialize and split up Germany after WWII.

So already because of this she was interested to paint a biased picture about Germany before WWI.

People like her are the children and grandchildren of those who were the winners of past wars and that now are spinning a positive narrative - history is written by the (families of the) winners.--212.95.5.224 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a war aim

What this page glosses over is the fact that this was only a "suggestion" put into a memorandum by one person and nothing more. It was not a government programme or "war aim". Fritz Fischer is a highly discredited historian who is anti-German (despite being German) and regarded by patriots and other historians as a traitor. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:E004:6152:A0:E161 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ww1 germany goals.GIF

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the discussion about war goals I also have to question the accuracy of the images included on the page. This applies in particular to the one pertaining Europe, which portrays a sweeping German annexation of Belgium all the way to the Meusse river and the incorporation of large chunks of Northern France into Germany and Belgium. I don't know what source it was based on but going back to the original source material as listed above, this is NOT included in the Septemberprogramm. The document mentioned: "incorporation of Liege and Verviers into Prussia, a border strip of the Belgian province of Luxembourg to the Kingdom Luxembourg", and for France annexation of the iron-ore basin of Briey, possibly Belfort and the western slopes of the Vosges, and the coastal strip (either to Germany or attached to Belgium). I'm fairly familiar with this subject matter and feel that this map is misleading.

Furthermore, given the nature of the document - which was more of an inventory of war goals of the military and special interest groups in Germany, as opposed to a policy paper that was ever adopted or implemented by the German government - I have concerns about giving it additional weight by adding maps based on the speculative outcome of its unlikely hypothetical implementation. Maps based on possible historical outcomes are better reserved for alternative history websites rather than a platform for factual information like Wikipedia. For that reason I'd advocate nominating one or both maps for removal. Septimus123 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]