Monkspider's history corner: Which country was most responsible for World War I?

[GePap]

von Molkte was not willing to bear the political cost of Russian troops holding german territory for long.

Besides, Prittwitz did retreat to the Visutla while Samsonov and Rennenkampf moved their armies in, which did give Molkte some cause to fret.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
I greatly underestimated the size of the German force in the first army: some numbers

Rigth hook
1st army: Von Kluck 320,000 men
2nd army: Von Bulow, 260,000 men
3rd army: Von Hausen, 180,000
4th army: Duke Albrecht, 200,000

In Alsace
5th army: Crown Prince Wilhem, 220,000
6th Army: Crown Prince Ruppercht, 220,000
7th Army: Von Heeringen, 125,000

Compare this to the East, in August 1914:

8th army, first under Prittwitz, then Luddendorf and Hindunberg: 200,000 men.

Ad during the month of August, the German were able to divert 2 entire corp from the West to reinforce the East

The reason the erman's had so many forces in the west is because their battle plan called for a quick invasion of France to knock the frogs out of the war before the Russians could fully mobilize their forces. Thus it was theorized the Germans could defeat the French then transfer their forces east to deal with the Russians.

[KrazyHorse]

Too bad it happened the other way 'round...

[Wernazuma III]

I think it can't really be done to make a certain country responsible for the World War.
I'd blame Austria though for the war against Serbia though. The demands could not be met by any state who wishes to keep some of its sovereignity. They would have handed their state over to Austria by accepting the ultimatum. (Somehow, this reminds me of modern situation )
But without all those alliance systems, it would have never become a World War, just an Austro-Serbian war, maybe with Russia involved, because it has always been a staunch ally of Serbia and they were pissed at Austria especially (rivalry in the Balcans). But Austria-Hungary didn't try to mess with the rest of the world.
Maybe I'd also blame the Germans for having been very active in building up all those alliances with their imperialist policy. However, they were not the only ones who acted in an imperialist way, they just tried to catch up a bit.

Conclusio, no single country can be blamed for the world war.

[GePap]

Oerdin: There is a very strong opinon that by shifting so many forces form the right hook to Alsace to fend of the French (a correct guess given France's plan 17), that von Molkte weakened severely Schlieffens's plan. I think schlieffen wanted a 3 to 1 ration between the right hook and the center in alsace. And again, this was the result of the fear of enemy troops getting into Germany. Schliffen didn't seme to mind that.

I still think it was impossible to expect half a million German soldier to amrch and fight for an entire month and have them reach Paris so quickly, and on top of that the Russians, at least at Tannenberg, moved more quickly than expected.

[monkspider]

GeGap: Thanks for making such wonderful contributions to this thread. One thing I believe that you underscore is the role that Germany played in Austria's decision to opt for war. Since the onset of the crisis, Germany had been strongly pressuring Austria to take an aggressive stance. In fact, Germany telegraphed the Austrians letting them know in no uncertain terms that they would give them a blank check, long before the Austrians officially asked for it. Germany was terrified of Austria, their only ally, looking impotent. If the Germans hadn't been so strongly pressuring the Austrians to act in a belligerent manner, there likely would have been no war. A lot of the government records and telegrams show that Germany wanted war, and the sooner the better. One of the telegrams the Germans sent Austria said that "War yesterday would have been better than today, but today will be better than tommorow". Why they wanted it now rather than in 1905, or even 1911, when there would have been little possibilty of Russia putting up the fight they did in 1914 is a tough question that no historian can completely answer.

[molly bloom]

What we should also ask, is who wanted what from World War I ?

German war aims (as I stated in another post) and as described by Professor Fritz Fischer in the book 'Griff nach der Weltmacht' (publ.1961) were actually more extreme than Hitler's, in that they included a drive to the west, as well as to the east. They would have entailed (had the Triple Alliance been successful), a Belgium wholly annexed by the German Empire, French iron ore fields sequestered by the Empire, Poland and Ukraine cleared of Slav inhabitants and resettled by Germans, and annexed by the German Empire.

http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/WWI-L/1999/12/msg00363.html

Russia of course, had had designs on the Ottoman Empire and coveted Istanbul, and an all year round warm water port. It also acted as the protector/guarantor of Balkan Orthodox Slav states and occasionally meddled in internal Austro-Hungarian politics by encouraging Hungarian separatists (although it had happily acquiesced in the carving up of Catholic Slav Poland).

After Bismarck's dismissal in 1890, Kaiser Wilhelm II renounced the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia- leading Russia to turn towards France, with whom she allied in 1894. It is worth bearing in mind, that due to Bismarck's statecraft, in 1887, Russia, Italy and Austria Hungary were all friendly towards the German Empire. By 1914, France, as the only previously openly hostile country, had been joined by Great Britain and Russia, and Germany's ally Austria had managed to provoke the hostility of Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Russia and Italy.

The three central empires also contained large minorities- in the case of Germany, Danes, Poles and French, and in Austria's, Poles, Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, Serbs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Italians and Rumanians.

Austria had also been instrumental in denying the new Serbian state its own seaport- creating Albania from previously Turkish territory in 1912 (effectively locking in Serbia on the Adriatic side), and controlling Spalato and Cattaro in Dalmatia- which Serbia looked covetously on.

There are times when personalities and individuals do have a hand in deciding history- the character of the German Kaiser, and the pride of the Danubian monarchy have to be taken into account. It would have been a grievous insult to Habsburg prestige, had the assassination by a Serb in Austrian held Bosnian Serb inhabited territory, of a member of the ruling house of Austria-Hungary, gone unpunished. Similarly, the Kaiser's grasp of foreign policy was not the steady hand of the 'dropped pilot' Bismarck, and he did not have Bismarck's luck. Also, wantonly ignoring Belgian neutrality (and Germany had been a guarantor of Belgian independence) and invading neutral Luxembourg does not present one's casus belli in the best light.

[Dinner]

If the Germans really wanted war then they should have done it in 1905 when the Russians were still crying into their cherios over the shalaking the Japs gave them. They could have one out right in 1905.