Not sure I see the point of his argument. "A descendant of Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand has said his family should take no blame for the outbreak of the First World War. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is widely considered to have triggered the start of the conflict, which killed 37million people, 100 years ago. But Karl Habsburg-Lothringen has insisted to journalists that his family have no need to show any remorse for the war - because they do not need to 'redeem' themselves for anything.+3 Archduke Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip, who was 19 years old. This action, on June 28, 1914, led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. After that Serbia's ally Russia, and Russia's allies France and Britain, were pulled into conflict with Austria-Hungary and its treaty partner, Germany. But, in an interview with a number of European newspapers, including The Guardian, Mr Habsburg-Lothringen has said the First World War was already an inevitability at this stage. He told the papers: ‘If you were to simplify it, you could say that the shooting in Sarajevo started the First World War. ‘But if there hadn’t been the shooting in Sarajevo, it would have kicked off three weeks later somewhere else.’" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540362/Ancestor-Franz-Ferdinand-insists-family-no-blame-First-World-War-despite-trigger-effect-archdukes-assassination.html
An important point for young historians..."it would have kicked off three weeks later somewhere else."
At first I thought this was about a new motto for the forum staff....my mistake Sadly there is enough blame to go around, the Serbs, the Imperial Russians, the Republican French, Imperial Germans and yes, the Hapsburg line of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While it (the Great War) was likely to be ignited somewhere else, over some other dispute, there is still the possibility that it might have been avoided or have been a smaller, regional war, rather than the cataclysmic event it became and the catalyst for an even greater bloodbath a generation later. Three of the Empires were on the verge of extinction before the war (Russian, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian) and might have "passed away in their sleep" as it is (though such an event might have acted as a trigger itself). The old Europe was changing even if the established powers could not see it or chose to ignore it as some did.
What about the British with their "paranoia" about naval supremacy, which looks even less rational considering it was abandoned just a few years after the war with the Washington treaty? I would put most of the "blame" on the diplomats that created a domino effect where one country after the other was pulled into the war by binding treaties. IMHO in 1914 very few realized just how destructive industrialized war could be, a century of comparatively very limited wars, often resolved by just one decisive battle lasting a couple of days, (with the possible exception of the Russo-Japanese one), had created an very romanticised idea of warfare so the there was a widespread support for war in the European population, by the time they realized what was happening propaganda and/or martial law made opposition impossible. For most Western European countries WW1 was a lot more destructive than WW2.
Normally I am first to jump on any moving Perfidious Albion bandwagon, but in this case I will only note its slow passing. In truth Imperial Germany must take much of the blame for artificially inflating the naval arms race considering her rather anemic overseas empire. The only real purpose of the High Seas Fleet was to twist the tail of the English lion. For the record Britain was also concerned by the expansion of Japan's and America's battle fleets as well, but Germany's was the prime worry. I am not sure I can support the final point that for most of Europe the Great War was more destructive than WWII. Britain, France, Italy, Turkey and I believe Belgium suffered significant higher war dead. France and Belgium greater physical devastation to their home countries. The following war drew in many countries that avoided the first, with only Turkey managing to stay out of the second war. In the Great War I believe only Serbia was fully occupied by a conquering power, many more in the second with many nations fought over for years.
I intend to agree . Firstly: had WW1 leaders known what hell was about to happen they would have thought twice. Secondly how would a country react nowadays if its leader was to be killed during a visit ? Thirdly are descendants to be blamed for what their ancestors did ?
That is a non-starter. Britain could, without to much trouble, maintain naval supremacy over Germany, which is what she did prior to & during World War I. However, once the United States became a major "player", Britain found that she would be hard-pressed to maintain even an equal naval balance once American industry swung into action. This can be seen with the quick American naval buildup during the war and their ambitious naval plan that was to be followed after the war
One of the reasons for British paranoia over naval supremacy was the fact we hadn't been self-sufficient in food production since the turn of the century, and the navy was seen as the only way to safeguard supply lines. It was still an era of gunboat diplomacy. Dreadnought-style capital ships were seen as the only viable threat to shipping, since subs were in their infancy. Even when the latter's full capabilities became obvious, the Admiralty refused to implement convoys as "un-British" until 1917, and then only voluntarily to begin with.
The causes of Great War can be downgraded to three basic factors I think. 1) Creation of Two Rival Power Blocs who at some point refused to see each other's perspective. This is especially revelant to Imperial Germany , Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire 2) Expection of a short war and quick victory. No one at either camp was expecting a four year blood bath destruction and economic ruin. Germans were quite confident of outcome , relying on their military traditions and armed might plus the result of Franco-Prussia War. French were feeling revenchalism after losing Alsace Lorreine , Austria Hungary was confident on crushing Serbs quickly , Young Turk goverment of Ottoman State was afraid of missing the train and losing a chance to gain concessions at peace table on victor's side etc. Everyone (except Britain maybe which was satisfied with pre war conditions more or less ) was relentless to enter the war. Instead someone should have looked at American Civil War and saw what a catastrophe a war between industrial nations could be. 3) Fear. Especially fear of Russia and Russian expansion. With modernization of Russian Empire Germans were feeling vulnerable so were Turks against Russia which had aims on both East Prussia and Dardanelles Straits. British were afraid of Germans due to Kaiser's unstable diplomatic maneuvers like Berlin-Baghdad Railway lines and a possible move on India and Egypt. French who were behind of Germans in military were afraid of a renewed German attack on patrie and renewal of Franco-Prussia War etc.... Somekind of conferance might have been great to clear the air before the war and to finalize each sides aims , needs etc. Unfortunetely German goverment once gave carte blance to Austria in July 1914 it basicly sabotaged that hope.
In all sarcasm....the Brit public couldn't have given a fig about some Johnny foreigner killed in some alien nation on some other planet....But put nuns and babies on the end of bayonets and god help Johnny foreigner....Murdoch and SKY would have had a field day in that era.
I can agree with much of this, but some points need amplification or qualification. Power Bloc's indeed did have a crippling impact on any possible peaceful solution or one that allowed for a limited war to be waged. I am not convinced however that one was more culpable than the other. From what I have read each power joined a bloc for a very self-serving reason, worse each ally treated its treaty partner as someone to be manipulated and was largely as blind to the goals of their partner as they were to the opposing bloc. I accept that the Austro-Hungarian's were highly confident they could and would roll over Serbia. I think France was nearly as confident that with Russia's help (and Britain) Germany could be beaten, Russia less so after the debacle of the Russo-Japanese war less than a decade before, but unwilling to see the Hapsburg's gain any ground in the Balkans. Overall in my opinion Germany was the least confident (save the Kaiser) of the 5 major actors in 1914. They knew they were in a steadily worsening condition by virtue of the alliance make-up and with each passing year it would probably get worse. For the German General Staff, now was as good a time as any and later quite probably could be fatal. Fear played its part, but so too greed. The Hapsburg's wanted Serbia, Russia, influence in the Balkans, France, the return of Alsace-Lorraine, Britain, the Middle East. I am not sure what Germany hoped to get out the conflict other than a chance to reverse her slowly declining position within the power bloc's. I am not saying Germany was a victim in this as they acted in as a cynical manner as any other power.
