Who started World War I?

[warspite1]

Given its the 100th anniversary of start of the Great War, I thought it would be interesting to hear peoples views on this.

There has been a lot of books and programs over the recent past that have challenged the "Germany did it" version of events. Have people been swayed by these arguments? Have they always held a different view anyway? or have they read the new ideas and rejected them?

Its a fascinating subject - anyone interested in such a debate?

[Terminus]

Germany, France and Russia all wanted war in 1914, but the Germans were definitely the aggressive power. Austria-Hungary was merely a tool for Germany.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Germany, France and Russia all wanted war in 1914, but the Germans were definitely the aggressive power. Austria-Hungary was merely a tool for Germany.

warspite1

Thank-you for getting the ball-rolling Terminus.

That's one for the "traditional" view, although would certainly be interested to hear more on the idea that France and Russia also wanted war in 1914.

[warspite1]

Sorry I should have said, I am very much in the "Germany is to blame camp". She gave Austria-Hungary the "blank cheque" without which the latter could have not attacked Serbia. That said, life is never that straightforward and there were clearly other factors involved that helped the war to come about.

Interestingly, even if the "It was Germany's fault" position is true, then there is the question of WHO within the seat of power made it happen.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Interestingly, even if the "It was Germany's fault" position is true, then there is the question of WHO within the seat of power made it happen.

I don't think it's easy to answer that question, Warspite [8D] It's not black or white. Historians (not military historians) evade the XIX century concept of the Big Man as the center of everything.

Something along these lines "if Napoleon did not exist French society would have invented him".

In any case, the years before WW1 there were at least minimum 4 or 5 international crises. Eventually they lead to a major massacre ie the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Interestingly, even if the "It was Germany's fault" position is true, then there is the question of WHO within the seat of power made it happen.

I don't think it's easy to answer that question, Warspite [8D] It's not black or white. Historians (not military historians) evade the XIX century concept of the Big Man as the center of everything.

Something along these lines "if Napoleon did not exist French society would have invented him".

In any case, the years before WW1 there were at least minimum 4 or 5 international crises. Eventually they lead to a major massacre ie the war.

warspite1

No its not an easy question to answer - hence I thought it would be a good subject for debate amongst military/history enthusiasts [:)]

As for your comment about "eventually they lead to a major massacre" yes quite so, but what was it that led that international crisis to World War I?

[TulliusDetritus]

If we are to follow the official account, that Serbian terrorist started the whole thing.

I suppose most of the belligerants were simply rapacious [:D]

1) Gemany wanted her place under the sun (colonies ie markets)
2) France wanted her revenge (Alsace, Lorraine)
3) Russia wanted to rob Turkey and grab some more land
4) the British Empire wanted to get rid of a dangerous new Big Boy (Germany)

So if basically of all them had some [rapacious] goal, it's complicated to say who was the nasty starter (unlike in WW2: Germany and Japan were clearly the rapacious side). And all of them marched happily to the front.

[Chickenboy]

Two thoughts:

1. Germany was directly responsible for the aggressive stance in Europe at the time. Der Kaiser and his attitudes-cultural, spiritual and otherwise had everything to do with his willingness to sow wholesale slaughter across the continent.

2. The scope and breadth of WWI was THE classic example to heed George Washington's views against "entangling Alliances". Far too many countries engaged in the war because of some sense of treaty duty or responsibility. Had there been a lesser willingness to engage in this self-perpetuating nonsense, the conflict would likely have been muted-or at least not killed as many as it did.

[TulliusDetritus]

One more thing: WWII has blurred everything. It has reinforced the idea that Germany was the XX Century Uber Agressor. But this is an a posteriori (from 1945).

But as regards WWI you should notice that serious historians don't put the 100% of the blame on Germany.

[Terminus]

Britain was very unenthusiastic about going to war. Despite their (very flimsy) alliance with France, they still felt more kinship with the Germans, and also traditionally had very little interest in European politics, being more focused on maintaining their empire.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Britain was very unenthusiastic about going to war. Despite their (very flimsy) alliance with France, they still felt more kinship with the Germans, and also traditionally had very little interest in European politics, being more focused on maintaining their empire.

warspite1

What interest there was in European affairs was limited to ensuring that no one - not the Spanish, French or anyone, had hegemony.

[Hotschi]

Fact is that the Habsburgs (i.e. Kaiser Franz Joseph) of Austria-Hungary wanted a showdown with Serbia.

That the assassin (Gavrilo Princip) of the Austro-Hungarian heir Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo happened to be of Serbian nationality, made it very easier to issue some impossible ultimatum to Serbia - to get the "jolly little war" Franz Joseph wanted.

Buuuuut....since Russia was by treaty allied with Serbia, and other players in Europe had a plethora of other issues to settle.... bang.

[Darkspire]

Franz Ferdinand was assassinated which caused a war between Hungary(?) and Serbia. Think that is was dominoes after that as everyone seemed to kick off and the war started. (It's a good job they didn't have Facebook).

Darkspire

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
What interest there was in European affairs was limited to ensuring that no one - not the Spanish, French or anyone, had hegemony.

Yes, that had been the Big Supreme Goal of the British since the 1500s. and they indeed prevailed [8D]

In this case (WWI), Germany had become a serious threat. By 1900 they had already surpassed the British (industrial power).

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
But as regards WWI you should notice that serious historians don't put the 100% of the blame on Germany.

Of course not. There were more than one potential belligerents out there "spoiling" for a fight. I'll not list them all. Germany heads the list by a long mark.

[Hotschi]

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy - also known as Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or k.u.k. Monarchy, Austro-Hungary, Dual Monarchy, Danube Monarchy... heck seems they couldn't even settle on a name.

Hungary is without guilt here, darkspire. They had no say whatsoever - Hungary's king was Franz Joseph, emperor of that entity as described above.

[Orm]

I have a somewhat different view than most on this subject. But at the moment I am not really comfortable posting about it. I fear that this subject might turn into a flame war if one post against the majority view of things. And, although it is a hundred years ago, some might think this still is a political issue.

----

I am glad you begun this discussion Warspite1 since I have wanted similar threads for some time. But I've been to cowardly to begin them. I do hope that this thread stay civil so that more threads like this may thrive on this forum.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

Fact is that the Habsburgs (i.e. Kaiser Franz Joseph) of Austria-Hungary wanted a showdown with Serbia.

That the assassin (Gavrilo Princip) of the Austro-Hungarian heir Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo happened to be of Serbian nationality, made it very easier to issue some impossible ultimatum to Serbia - to get the "jolly little war" Franz Joseph wanted.

Buuuuut....since Russia was by treaty allied with Serbia, and other players in Europe had a plethora of other issues to settle.... bang.

Warspite1

But wasn't the point that Austria couldn't run the risk of war with Serbia without German support (because of Russian support for the Serbs)?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I have a somewhat different view than most on this subject. But at the moment I am not really comfortable posting about it. I fear that this subject might turn into a flame war if one post against the majority view of things. And, although it is a hundred years ago, some might think this still is a political issue.

----

I am glad you begun this discussion Warspite1 since I have wanted similar threads for some time. But I've been to cowardly to begin them. I do hope that this thread stay civil so that more threads like this may thrive on this forum.

warspite1

I would urge you to post Orm. There is no right or wrong answer because, quite simply, none of us will ever know for certain. I hope the debate will continue in the manner in which it has begun.

I cannot see that politics has anything to do with it - this is a historical discussion.

[Zorch]

Speaking of the 'P' word, I'm surprised Slaak hasn't jumped in...not that I want him to.

I would say WWI was 90% Germany's fault.
It's ironic that those empires ended by the war were among the most enthusiastic about starting it. Perhaps they saw it as a diversion from internal problems.