Whose fault was WW1?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Is that me?

I'd say there was a great deal of desire for war among the upper echelons of many different states concenrned in the conflict. Because nobody realized the death and devastation of modern war, it was all the easier to think it would be short and decisive, and thus less objectionable generally. In short, nobody wanted that war, but many wanted a war.

Edit:



Also this.

Cyclotron, I was thinking the same thing earlier. I think the majority, if not all, of those who thought the war was a good idea going in, changed their minds by the end of it, including those on the winning side.

Since Churchill wrote so many books, we should know what he thought on this. Anyone know whether he thought WWI was a good thing (for the British Empire)?

[Ned]

Geronimo, there hadn't been a general European war for 100 years.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If the nature of the alliances had been more open and the terms of those treaties had specified no commitment to an ally who had made the first attack I wonder if those conditions could have prevented the war.

There hadn't been such a general european war in several decades. Could it not have been successfully postponed indefinately?

Well, if you change enough factors I imagine you could come up with a situation in which no war happens. The politics of the time simply made it unlikely, and those politics weren't arbitrary.

Furthermore, the European nations had yet to see modern weapons exerted on anybody other than distant colonial subjects, and simply couldn't fathom how much war had changed. So long as they remained in the dark about the terrible nature of modern total war, they would never be suitably deterred from its pursuit. Modern, peaceful Europe is in part a product of how horrid the World Wars were, and given how militant and aggressive all sides were in WW1 I find it doubtful that a war would have been postponed for long - until the lesson was suitably taught, nobody would ever bank on war being that brutal, and everybody would be encouraged to start one if they saw benefit in it. The revolution in warfare combined with nationalist and imperialist politics made such a war inevitable, and thus a discussion of "who, precisely, is at fault" is rather lame. It, or something like it, would (in my humble opinion, of course) have happened regardless of whether the Archduke had a delightful vacation or a bullet in the brain.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


The Brits were concerned about the German naval buildup and the contest they had gotten into with them over oil rights in the ME. Most of these were controlled by the Ottomans who were tilting towards Germany because of the long antogisms between the Ottomans and the Russians and Serbs. Thus the Brits had major reasons to go to war regardless of Belgium.

You keep talking about this supposed contest over Middle East oil rights between Imperial Germany and Great Britain.

I keep expecting to see some proof to back it up.

I never do.

You then repeat and rinse, as per.


Would it be too much to expect, just for once, without being asked, you furnish us with some evidence of something you allege ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Molly and I do agree on that.

We don't, actually. The war started because Austria-Hungary had to save face, if the empire was to continue as any kind of power in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

But what was Austria-Hungary hoping to achieve against Serbia ?

After all Serbia was still recovering from the recent war in the Balkans (1913); but on the other hand, Austria-Hungary wouldn't want to annexe any more Serbs to its empire given the restive nature of the Slav populations it already ruled over.

So what should have been 'a little local difficulty' like the previous Balkan war was magnified into a world war because of the ill-thought out promise of the German Kaiser and the German High Command, who had wanted a pretext to go to war against France since before the Algeciras Conference, and who were disturbed at Tsarist Russia's recovery from the defeat by Japan and economic and industrial growth.

But their concerns with France and Russia (and pointless naval race with Great Britain) really had nothing to do with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
And by allying with Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary had unwittingly extended the scope of any future conflict in which it expected backing from that power.

As for Great Britain wanting to go to war with Imperial Germany- I can't see why a nation of shopkeepers would suddenly desire war against one of the country's major trading partners.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Geronimo, there hadn't been a general European war for 100 years.

There had been several great power wars however, notably the German wars of reunification in 1866 and 1871, and the most recent Russo-Turkish war. In the first two Germanys enemies were isolated against superior German power and lost. In the Russo-Turkish war, Russia won, but diplomatically isolated, was forced to give up most of her gains.

Everyone knew those things, and the powers, Britain, aside, didnt want to be caught isolated again. And Britain, facing the risk of war with France at Fashoda, and isolation during the Boer war, realized they couldnt afford to be isolated anymore either, and so entered the quasi alliance which was the Triple Entente.

Not only the alliance system, but the overall power balance was different in the early 20th century than it had been in during the Pax Brittanica of the 19th c. As long as Britain was unchallenged as number one global power, and the other great powers were not going to unite against Britain (thanks in no small part to the restraint with which Britain exercised here status, and the skill with which it manipulated differences among the other great powers) there was not going to be a war on the scale of the Napoleonic wars or WW1.

As Britain entered relative decline, the system destabilized.

[Dr Strangelove]

It should be remembered that the Austrians didn't have a clear right to annex Bosnia. They were supposed to be protecting the area until a future conference decided Bosnia's fate.

The real culprit (cause of the war) was the Jingoistic Imperialist culture of turn of the century Europe. Virtually everyone wanted the war. The Serbs wanted to gain control over Serb inhabited lands controlled by the Austrians. The Austrians wanted a free hand to rule the Balkans - they had no colonies after all. The Russians also wanted sovreignity over the Balkans, they were after all the greatest Slav nation, and control of the Balkans might eventually lead to control of the Bosporus. The Germans wanted to contest Britain's position as dominant world power. The French wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. The British wanted to show the Germans their place. The Italians wanted a slice of the old Roman empire. The Ottomans wanted to play the game with the big boys. The Bulgarians wanted Macedonia. The Japanese wanted to help themselves to German colonies. Let's face it, the only people among the promary combatants who didn't want the war were the Belgians and the Americans.