Who is primarily responsible for WW I?

Just another "Classic" thread

Have fun, I'll throw in my 2c later.

Cheers,

 

I say Austria. The declaration of war against Serbia was the last step that could have possibly been avoided. After that, spreadover to all great powers on the one or other way was inevitable.

 

Slavic nationalism was brewing after the Franco-Prussian war. Or, Crimean War. Or Balkan Wars? I think the "powder keg" sparked conflict was inevitable.

 

WOW! This is definately a though but good one!

First of all, I must say that the Great War is by far the most important conflict in the XX century. It HAD TO happen, but the way it did changed the world forever.

The MAIN two reasons why it happened are NATIONALISM and COLONIALISM.

First you have this very little place called Europe and a lot of very powerful nations in it. It's no surprise that sooner or later, they had to clash into an annihilation struggle.

But why did it happen the way it did or why did it happen at all if everything seemed so well? European monarchies were under members of the same family, international commerce was at its peak and Great Britain and France had an incredible ammount of trade with Germany. The world seemed prosperous, peaceful, technologically advanced and peaceful - like nowadays - but nobody was happy enough with what they already had and nationalism justified it. The British thought they were superior, the French, Russians and Germans too, they had the 'right ' to look for more.

Germany - as ALWAYS - had done everything late and became a nation centuries after other countries and therefore she couldn't ambition a lot of colonies within the colonial world. Von Bismarck was able enough to secure some little gains for Germany in Berlin in 1888, but the world trade and the colonial world were controlled by Great Britain. Germany had industrialised at an amazing rate; in 40 years she was producing more at some things than Great Britain which had begun her industrialisation in the XVIII century. A powerful, industrial nation as strong as the UK seemed awful to the British. So, even if both Kings were cousins, their countries couldn't coexist that easily and even less, when the Kaiser came with the crazy idea of building a war fleet.

France was the prosperous republic, capital of art, culture and fashion. Her industry, army and empire had been growing stronger and stronger to revenge her humilliation of 1870 and was eaggering to teach the boches a lesson and take parts of their colonial and economic empire. Germany, of course, still wanted to finally annihilate the gaules and impose their haegemony in the West.

Russia and Austria disputed the Balcans where paneslavism was strong and it was Russia's main ally and Austria's main foe. Both nations wanted the Balcans to acces to the Mediterranean and have more economic incomes and annihilating their rivals. The sick man of Europe, Turkey, entered in all this and there were her disputes of Libya with Italy, of Egypt, Palestine and Persia with Great Britain, the Balcans and the Caucasus with Russia.

There were the Italians and the Austrians fighting for the Tirol and the Italian-speaking population.

There was Japan wanting Chinese ports to expand trade and power.

Etc., etc., etc.

WWI was everybody's fault. If it had not been the assassination of the Austrian Archduke, it would have been another thing. Everyone just looked for the slightest excuse to achieve what everyone wanted: EXPAND THEIR ECONOMICAL AND POLITICAL POWER based on their nationalist beliefs of superiority. And that is why all Europe went to war as happily as they did, not considering that wars of modern, national states meant blood baths and total participation of the whole nation.

(And I know I have missed a few points because of my bad memory, but I'll come later with more...)

 

I agree with most parts of this analysis, however not the conclusions.

For one: To have a motivation for war does not necessarily mean that it will really happen... often enough there is another solution. It needs someone to cast the first stone - unfortunately, these were the Central Powers.

Secondly, there is too much ado about the 'economical' reasons. Economy was the main motivation for the USA to enter the war... and only the USA! German employers and bankers were well aware that a war could be a catastrophy for them and didn't want it.

The war was NOT inevitable. It needed idiots like William II. to construct a warlike situation. If Germany had made a clever foreign policy, the Entente Cordiale would never have existed, and there wouldn't have been 2 blocks of similar strength, both greedy to show their superiority.

 

Thanks to (whatshisface Princip? ) assassinating The Arch Duke and his wife, that was all that seem to be needed for Austria to go to full mobilization. And like a stack of dominos, the rest of Europe decided to fully mobilize.

 

Carl, it was Gavrilo Princip.



[ 19. November 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

True, but you must add to the equation nationalism and national pride which make the nations believe they are superior, have rights over the other and they can easily win in a short conflict, based on the confidence of their general staff who are blinded by quick railroad mobilisation, modern weapons and long planned strategies.

You are right, but certainly there's not much ado. The USA didn't get into the war soon enough because they were too busy picking up the pieces of the breaking empires. Because while Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain were focusing all her efforts in the war, the USA was producing, exporting and sneaking economically into the colonial empires, foriming its own neocolonial empire. If you look at this, it was better for the USA to stay out. And maybe the German , French and British economists could foresee the terrible consequences of war - which later were confirmed; the economic suicide of Europe - but they thought that a rapid defeat of their political and economic enemies, the adquisition of colonies and more markets would bring a lot more benefits in the long term. That's why they went for it.

You're absolutely right about the idiotic diplomacy performed by everyone back then. It was ambitious, ultranationalist politicians the ones which carried out such agressive diplomacy and politics and created a system of alliances that make two hostile sides of Europe and which provoke innecessary rearment.

If stupid Kaiser Wilhelm wouldn't have wanted a powerful Navy, Great Britain wouldn't have felt treathened and would have been there little reasons for Germany and Great Britain to fight each other. But Germany needed raw materials and markets to sell her products; that meant more extra European markets and a fleet to secure that trade.

But the war WAS inevitable. You can't thrust on the esensce of the human being and that they could have solved everything peacefully. The truth is that there was TOO MUCH power in a small area and neither country could expand more because there were the others; politically or economically. And nationalism made everyone believe they HAD to grow. The people thought like that and those silly politicians more than the rest. You cannot take away from the spot nationalism nor agressive and uncareful politicians.

I'm not justifying them since I still believe that WWI was the worst thing ever happened in Europe, because the social, economical, technological and cultural splendor of 1890-1914 in Europe was never that great. Maybe 2000 is seeing some similar Europe, but not a greater one.

 

Agreed, but there was no necessity for such a BIG fleet. In fact it would have been very easy for the Germans to reach a settlement, like, build a fleet of 1/3 of the Royal Navy. But their policy was to be STRONG...

I'm not convinced. If there had ever been a 3rd World War bteween the superpowers, probably many historians would have said that it was "inevitable". So often in history, there is an alternative...

If the old man with the bushy whiskers dies in 1910, nobody can predict what will happen... Franz Ferdinand had some good political concepts.

 

Just to throw in a minor remark, not in relation to the thread:

I absolutely doubt that in summer 1914 anyone except of a dozen people in entire Europe had an idea what kind of unbelievable slaughter this coming war would bring. A war was just thought to be fought and won in a offensive way, attacking being the the "creative" way to fight etc. Losses, yeah, of course, but the idea that "defence" would have an unbelievable adavantage over "attack"? Never came into the minds.

Actually ALL Staff Generals in Europe (well except a very few who had no saying) were in my eyes a complete bunch of morons, not able to learn some obvious lessons out of the U.S. Civil War, the 1870-war and the Russian-Japanese war. Any cadet who spent some time on studying this battles must have come to the conclusion that the industrial advantage shifted the favor massively towards the "defence"-side, with respective consequences for the "attacking" side.

That's why the second names of Falkenhayn, Haig, Joffre, Cadorna became "the Butcher" (in the respective language). Terrible nonperformers, completely unable to realize the change in operational arts despite of watching their troops bleeding white.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers,

 

I agree with Andy's post (I know, it's not my day...)

Knight, your statement about WWIII isn't that comparable, since the Soviet Union and the USA were not as strong as the other and were not that eagger to go to war. In the end, the Soviet Union collapsed because she couldn't keep the rythm of the economical nor military confrontation. In 1914, countries couldn't become stronger because there was the other in the way.

And yes, the Kaiser didn't need such a big Navy...

 

"I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot
an ostrich 'cause he was hungry." – Private Baldrick, Black Adder goes forth, episode 6



No.9

 

Thats it Fried, thanks.

And Nr 9--where did you get a picture of Rick Lundstroms cat at?

 

Never mind the cat Carl, see if the library system will access here?

Needs time to load - then scroll down....and down.....and down...wierd man?

http://www.tampatantrum.com/2002/boobies.html

No.9

 

Damn Nr 9. It looks as if you have a spycam inside a Sorority House.

 

I think Austria's decision to go to war with Serbia was righted by Serbia's denial of the Austrian ultimatum(s). The ultimatum included the following demands: *Serbia must end all anti-Austrian propaganda,*Serbia must suppress any unfriendly newspapers and societies aimed against Austria,*Austria demanded that their officials be allowed to work with Serbian officials in investigating the murder of the Archduke and his wife,*Serbians involved in the assasination must be punished.
Consequently, Serbia denied Austrian's to enter the country to punish Serbians. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Austrian annexation was not well recieved lets look at the demands put on them as a result of the asassination- does anyone think that if, say, Blair or Bush visited an Arab country and were killed/asassinated/murdered and a terrorist cell or person(s) were positively identified but the prospective country not allowed intervention to punish the wrong do'er.....well, would just lay down??? Furthermore, Serbian will to participate in the "Court of Arbitration" after they disallowed Austrian intervention was a real joke. Anyway, that's my opinion!!!

 

Wil, even if Bush and Blair were killed while visiting an Arab country - leaving aside whether I think it'd be good or bad... - nowadays there are no big alliances systems in which the whole world can fall into war like domino pieces...

 

I have pondered a little about this statement, and I am not convinced yet... how can you be so sure and definitie in this conclusion? From my point of view, the lessons to learn from the Secession war, the French-Prussian war and the Russian-Japanese war were pretty different - and only the last one indicated a huge advantage for the defender.

 

There's also the fact that some officers DID learn those lessons. That they were ignored by superiors is a different matter - same happened in WWII. The perfect example is général Pétain, who clearly and openly disagreed about France's too agressive military doctrines. And 1915 confirmed Pétain's theories about attackers and defenders. That many generals just didn't learn from usless and bloody attacks in 1915 and even mounted bigger attacks in the next years is a separate matter.

 

I really hate to discuss with ignorant people... the same topic in thirdreichforum:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=37562&start=15