Whose to blame for starting WWI?

[Randomizer]

@ Goodguy. If everybody agreed with everything that was written the history world would be so very boring.

Niall Ferguson is well known for his detailed research and use of primary source documents to debunk much so-called conventional wisdom and historical mythology. If the reviewer had bothered to actually follow up on some of the hundreds of sources cited in the Pity of War he might have been more enlightened. Or probably not, the quoted review is a fine piece of shooting the messenger without bothering to address the contents of the message.

I believe that Prof. Ferguson built a strong case and his many of his Great War arguments have merit.

But, you may believe whatever you like...

[sprior]

Kaiser Bill was the one who made sure that EVERYONE got invited.

[Aurelian]

Would Austria have invaded Serbia if it wasn't for the blank check the Kaiser gave them?
 
IIRC, when Russia started to mobilize, or soon after, Willie turned to his Foreign Minister and said "Now what?"

[SlickWilhelm]

I read "The Pity of War", and while I don't have it in front of me for reference, I remember finding it a combination of revisionist history with a healthy dose of mumbo-jumbo and questionable logic thrown in for good measure. I was not impressed by Professor Ferguson's theses.

He did contribute some enlightening thoughts to the PBS documentary "The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century", though. I sure wish that documentary would be released onto DVD. 

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: sprior

Kaiser Bill was the one who made sure that EVERYONE got invited.

Agreed. Kaiser Wilhelm II made so many gaffes and ruffled so many feathers that he was the worst possible personality to lead Germany into the 20th century.

Ironically, he didn't actually want war with Great Britain, and never could understand why the British hated him so much.

[Randomizer]

I am in the process of reading Best of Enemies: about Anglo-German relations in the 20th Century.  It deals with the development of the hate propaganda on both sides starting almost from the later stages of the July Crisis.  A cautionary tale of best of friends becoming implaccable foes.
 
Up to 1914 and in spite of the naval rivalries and dreadnaught building race it's amazing how close the two countries were and how their economies were seemingly inextricably linked so that many pundents believed war between them was economically impossible.
 
Thanks to the Kaiser and Asquith, how wrong they all were about that!

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Today in AP European History Class, we had discussion of who is to blame for starting World War I. What do you guys think?

University professors are to blame for WWI.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

I believe that Prof. Ferguson built a strong case and his many of his Great War arguments have merit.

But, you may believe whatever you like...

Actually, my one-liner was rather a question than an attack on Ferguson's work or your recommendation, means it would have helped if you would have presented an essence of what Ferguson thinks (or of what you think) what the reasons for WW1 are, instead of dropping some plain links. [:)]

[Randomizer]

I would far rather people looked at the evidence and made up their own minds, hence the links to the references. Open discussions on Internet forums too frequently comes to resemble pig-wrestling: everybody gets dirty but only the pig has any fun.

Some of Ferguson's arguments are difficult to follow at times and fly in the face of conventional wisdom (whatever that might be) but we know that history has been spun since Heroditus so it does not require a PhD to think that everybody knows "Event X" happened this particular way or that everybody might just be mistaken. Why should the Great War be any different?

One example of the problem with The Pity of War is that it starts out to demolish the long held canard of pre-war German militarism and shows that per-capita spending on armaments was greater in France, which also conscripted a far greater proportion of it's population than did Germany and on par with the British Empire. Also the German treatment of the Army in popular esteem was entirely similar to the way the Royal Navy was treated in Britain. If this argument is correct, and he provides a considerable amount of social and economic primary source material to back it up, it completely undercuts many of the foundations of beliefs that are commonly held about the origins of the War. If German militarism was no worse than anybody else's, one leg is knocked out from the justification for waging the war the way it was fought. People like to cling to that which is familier and so anything different regardless of what sources are used becomes "revisionist" and relegated to the status of fantasy.

Cheers

[Hokum]

Is that really new? 30 years ago, we were explained in our classrooms that every frenchman born after 1870 wanted war because they grew up with a burning desire to take back Alsace-Lorraine by force (with this little picture of an instituteur explaining to kids that waging war against Germany would be their sacred duty).

However, I was left under the impression that from 1910 on germany's military expenditures rose dramatically, thus giving credit to those blaming Germany for effectively "starting" the war. The growth of the Kaiserlichemarine is well-documented as well

[sprior]

Germany attacked France through Belgium in order to knock out France before turning on the Russians in support of Austrian aggression against Serbia.

[billyjj]

The Jews started WW1 in order to financially ruin Europe so that they could grab control, the plan pretty much worked and this is what pissed of the Germans and gave rise to Hitler, the so called "stab in the back" at the peace negotiations. Sorry if this sounds like anti-semitism but its the truth.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: billyjj

The Jews started WW1 in order to financially ruin Europe so that they could grab control, the plan pretty much worked and this is what pissed of the Germans and gave rise to Hitler, the so called "stab in the back" at the peace negotiations. Sorry if this sounds like anti-semitism but its the truth.

Warspite1

I don`t believe I just read that.......

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: billyjj

The Jews started WW1 in order to financially ruin Europe so that they could grab control, the plan pretty much worked and this is what pissed of the Germans and gave rise to Hitler, the so called "stab in the back" at the peace negotiations. Sorry if this sounds like anti-semitism but its the truth.

In before lock...

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

If German militarism was no worse than anybody else's, one leg is knocked out from the justification for waging the war the way it was fought.

Agreed, German militarism was no worse than anyone elses. I think Germany got the bad rap because the Kaiser was so full of bluster.

But I didn't suddenly come to this conclusion from reading "The Pity of War". I got it from reading dozens of books from the authors Ferguson so desperately tries to debunk.

Ferguson really lost me when he came to the conclusion that Britain could have(and should have) stayed out of the war. What about the 1840 something treaty to preserve Belgium's neutrality? What would happen to England's slim lead in dreadnoughts if the Germans were allowed to steam roll France and capture the French fleet?

The naval race with Germany in the first decade of the 1900's surely played a large role in Britain deciding to throw in their lot with the French and Russians.

British foreign policy for two hundred years, afterall, was focused on preventing one nation from gaining hegemony on the European continent!

Finally, are we to believe that the Entente Cordial signed in 1904(and adding Russia in 1907) meant nothing to the British?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

The short answer is that Austria is to blame for actually starting the war. Had they reacted to Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination differently, the war would have been postponed(but probably not prevented). Austria took three weeks to respond to his murder, finally presenting a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia, which required Serbia to take steps that violated her sovereignty ...

It still takes two to tango; the team of assasins sent to kill the archduke was secretly "handled" by a Serbian intell officer, but I can't imagine what his motive for the murder was, aside from the possible destabilization of a rival nation by killing the hier to its throne.

Ironically, the archduke wasn't a well-liked figure, yet the world went to war over him.

BTW, during a peacekeeping tour in Bosnia, I stood on the bridge in Sarajevo where the archduke was attacked.

[Randomizer]

Unfortunately the image of Kaiser Wilhelm as some sort of proto-Hitler is lodged too firmly in the popular imagination to be easily challanged. The wartime propaganda colours his image so completely that anything to the contrary is dismissed without thought.

However Germany in 1914 was not a monolithic oligarchy but rather a liberal democracy with a strong constitution and where the Kaiser's powers were limited by law and similar to those of Cousin King George V. The most salient difference is arguably, that Wilhelm's cabinet was appointed in consultation with the Chancellor whereas in the UK the cabinet was appointed by the Prime Minister from serving Members of Parliament. Also in Germany the Navy Minister and Minister of War had to be serving members of their respective services but in Britain the First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of War were civilians. This ensured that the military were theoretically subordinated to the civilian government at all times.

Where am I going with this?

Quite simply, in the lead up to the July Crisis, the British Government allowed itself to be swayed by paranoia driven by the War Department and Admiralty. The Dreadnaught race was won, Lord Haldine had been directed to reject Germany's bid for 60% parity with the RN and even then, the HSF had not even built up to that level and would never achieve this benchmark.*

Cabinet documents exist that chronicle secret military talks between Britain's General Staff reps and the Belgian General Staff in 1912, these talks being in complete violation of the 1834 Treaty so when Bethmann-Holwig dismissed it as a 'Scrap of Paper' it was because from a German point of view, Britain had already broken the Treaty with secret talks that German intelligence knew all about. Since the Army was subordinate to Parliament, it was obvious to the German's that such talks were sanctioned by the current Government and aimed directly at Germany.

Within the atmosphere of distrust and apperant grand strategic opportunities available throughout the July Crisis, the Britain's declaration of war can be seen as a cynical opportunity to slap down a commercial rival rather than some altruistic defence of the little guy. Later in the war Britain would invade and subvert the Greek government and force it to go to war against the Central Powers, that's how much respect for neutrals His Majesties Government had, the very same players that had played the Belgian card the previous August.

Words like 'blame' are entirely irrelevant when discussing man-made disasters like the Great War. Nobody's hands were clean but I do think that the standard telling of the tale is badly flawed and that Ferguson brings some of those flaws into the daylight.

Cheers

*Note:
Whether by tonnage or absolute numbers the German Navy would never have achieved the 60% that the Haldine mission was ordered to reject (and which Lord Haldine himself thought reasonable and non-threatening). Threat inflation is nothing new, the Admiralty pioneered it in the years leading up to WW1.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: billyjj

The Jews started WW1 in order to financially ruin Europe so that they could grab control, the plan pretty much worked and this is what pissed of the Germans and gave rise to Hitler, the so called "stab in the back" at the peace negotiations.

I'd ban users emitting stuff like that.

Anyway, you should get a history book and read up on why it was even possible to talk about a (in fact far-fetched) "stab in the back" (a myth created and fed by national conservatives and the nazis, btw), which was blamed on the Social Democratic Party:

Field marshal Hindenburg and General Ludendorff were allowed to absent themselfs from the armistice negotiations, they didn't want to have anything to do with a surrender (and with admitting that Germany's manpower resources were depleted).

The only reason for the Allied offensives in late 1918 not showing devastating effect on the German fronline, was that WW1 tactics and weaponry (ie. slow tanks) did not allow for exploiting the German shortcomings (eg. mass desertions, dwindling number of operational combat units: there were ZERO reserves, after several frontline sectors had to be pulled back and after the last ~ 2 units had been inserted in the frontline). The Germans were still able to muster enough effort to muster defensive actions that inflicted high casualties among Allied troops, though. Still, it was Max von Baden, as acting Chancelor, who initiated the negotations, not the Social Democrats, and it was him and 4 other German politicians of his administration who negotiated with Marshal Foch. The SPD wanted to keep the Kaiser, as representative of a constitutional monarchy. Whatsoever, eventually, after the administration had change, Friedrich Ebert - as new Reichskanzler - , signed the armistice of Comiègne and the Versailles treaty later on, a heavy burdon and birth mark of the "Weimar Republic".

Your resentment doesn't even come close to the real historic events. Sad.

[billyjj]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: billyjj

The Jews started WW1 in order to financially ruin Europe so that they could grab control, the plan pretty much worked and this is what pissed of the Germans and gave rise to Hitler, the so called "stab in the back" at the peace negotiations.

I'd ban users emitting stuff like that.

Anyway, you should get a history book and read up on why it was even possible to talk about a (in fact far-fetched) "stab in the back" (a myth created and fed by national conservatives and the nazis, btw), which was blamed on the Social Democratic Party:

Field marshal Hindenburg and General Ludendorff were allowed to absent themselfs from the armistice negotiations, they didn't want to have anything to do with a surrender (and with admitting that Germany's manpower resources were depleted).

The only reason for the Allied offensives in late 1918 not showing devastating effect on the German fronline, was that WW1 tactics and weaponry (ie. slow tanks) did not allow for exploiting the German shortcomings (eg. mass desertions, dwindling number of operational combat units: there were ZERO reserves, after several frontline sectors had to be pulled back and after the last ~ 2 units had been inserted in the frontline). The Germans were still able to muster enough effort to muster defensive actions that inflicted high casualties among Allied troops, though. Still, it was Max von Baden, as acting Chancelor, who initiated the negotations, not the Social Democrats, and it was him and 4 other German politicians of his administration who negotiated with Marshal Foch. The SPD wanted to keep the Kaiser, as representative of a constitutional monarchy. Whatsoever, eventually, after the administration had change, Friedrich Ebert - as new Reichskanzler - , signed the armistice of Comiègne and the Versailles treaty later on, a heavy burdon and birth mark of the "Weimar Republic".

Your resentment doesn't even come close to the real historic events. Sad.

No need to get so upset here, just look at your post... It doesn't matter what "reason" the so called allies couldn't overrun the German lines. The point is the Germans slaughtered the late 1918 offensive and had the war pretty much won at that point. If there was no "stab in the back" then what was all the fuss about? you tell me? The Generals wouldn't sit in on the talks because they didn't agree with a surrender when they were winning the war, come on man... I can see your from Germany and if thats the way the Germans want to remember it, then so be it... you can't change what really happened just ask your grandfather if he has balls enough to tell the truth.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

However Germany in 1914 was not a monolithic oligarchy but rather a liberal democracy with a strong constitution and where the Kaiser's powers were limited by law and similar to those of Cousin King George V.

Not at all.
Kaiser Wilhelm II. ostensibly put some pressure on industrial tycoons and on big companies, creating some hope in the workers' minds that he was a Kaiser with a sentiment for his people, and that he'd initiate some social change. The few reforms he supported got through because he hoped to reduce the raising popularity of the Social Democratic Party. The SPD even opposed his reforms (which were in fact parts of their demands) and voted against them in the Reichstag, just to stick to their strict fundamental opposition, aiming for ground-breaking structural reforms. The living standard and wealth of workers increased each year during his regency, but the workers did not get the impression that they were respected/accepted members of the society.

Censorship in Germany (newspapers, public speeches, etc.) was still in place until 1918. The several cabinets were more of puppet cabinets, who only acted on their own regarding foreign affairs (and often not according to Wilhelm's wishes) because Wilhelm did not good on the international stage (regarding PR/diplomatic appearance and negotiations).
I'd follow the historian Christopher Clark, though, who concludes that Wilhelm II. and the Kaiserreich shouldn't be seen as forerunner of the Nazi-dictatorship.
But his regency was still suppressive and oppressive, just on a way "higher" (more humane) level than the nazi regime. He still had a faible for all military things, and he may even have despised civilian life.