Who caused WW1 - revisited

[GaryChildress]

There was a discussion quite a while back, probably a couple years ago now, concerning who ought to be credited with starting World War I. Several seemed to maintain it was Germany for giving Austria-Hungary a "blank check" to invade Serbia. I don't remember if this was explored or not but what was the verdict on Russia? Didn't Russia come to Serbia's aid and essentially strengthen Serbia's resolve not to give into Austria-Hungary's demands? I confess I'm not at all familiar with the history of WW1. I am more familiar with WWII and I suspect Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union may have been spurred on by the perception that Russia's involvement in things set the wheels in motion for WW1.

[rico21]

It's much simpler start WWI and start WWII are first and foremost the confrontation of Germany and France, the rest is literature...

[Trugrit]

Gary,

It is very complicated.

I suggest you listen to this podcast on WW1. It is free. It will help make it all clear.

This is the first podcast in the series:
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardco ... ageddon-i/

This is the main page. The WW1 podcast has 6 parts.
http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

There was a discussion quite a while back, probably a couple years ago now, concerning who ought to be credited with starting World War I. Several seemed to maintain it was Germany for giving Austria-Hungary a "blank check" to invade Serbia. I don't remember if this was explored or not but what was the verdict on Russia? Didn't Russia come to Serbia's aid and essentially strengthen Serbia's resolve not to give into Austria-Hungary's demands? I confess I'm not at all familiar with the history of WW1. I am more familiar with WWII and I suspect Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union may have been spurred on by the perception that Russia's involvement in things set the wheels in motion for WW1.

there is blame a-plenty to spread around all the powers. In general, I think that no-one wanted it - they all thought they could get their goals without a general war - but no-one could work out how to avoid it. For a variety of reasons almost every state had domestic problems and a war was potentially useful as a means to deflect this.

The UK as an eg, was facing renewed violence in Ireland - this time largely from the Protestant/Loyalist communities who felt they were being sold out, ongoing major strikes from a newly emboldened trades union movement and the unrest around restrictions on the vote. I'm not saying the British state sat down and decided on a war to deflect attention but to some extent a war was a potentially helpful outcome ... just not the war they got into.

Russian-Serb relations were complex. Russia had been playing in the Balkans since the 1860s and looking for a reliable partner. The Serbs had very much their own agendas incl clashes with Russia's previous preferred partner (Bulgaria). The Serb extremists were certainly prepared to bring about war with Austria, but whether Russia's potential backing made much difference is less clear.

The problem was that every European General Staff had worked out a complex mobilisation plan - as they all relied on reservists for most of their army. This took time to work through and rarely had much flexibility so once one side started the others followed, and they couldn't part mobilise as that would have disrupted the original schedule.

As to wider responsibility? Fundamentally Germany. They deliberately provoked the other powers, crossed lines that meant there was bound to be a re-action and generally acted as if the logic of cause and effect had been suspended.

[RedLancer]

If you can find BBC TV's Drama "37 Days" online I highly recommend it as an enjoyable watch on the countdown to WW1.

[zakblood]

agreed ^^

[Aurorus]

The definitive book on the subject of what caused WWI is Laurence Lafore´s The Long Fuse. It is required reading for every graduate student in European history.

[Chickenboy]

I enjoyed the "Great Courses: World War I: The Great War" audio book lectures by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius. I checked these out from my library and recommend them. It's 36 lectures, but they're well done. The first 4-5 lectures deal with the instigation of the war, causes, responses and the initial rush to militancy.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

There was a discussion quite a while back, probably a couple years ago now, concerning who ought to be credited with starting World War I.

warspite1

You mean this one?

tm.asp?m=3541193&mpage=1&key=austria-hungary

If you can find BBC TV's Drama "37 Days" online I highly recommend it as an enjoyable watch on the countdown to WW1.

+1 - stonking [&o]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I enjoyed the "Great Courses: World War I: The Great War" audio book lectures by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius. I checked these out from my library and recommend them. It's 36 lectures, but they're well done. The first 4-5 lectures deal with the instigation of the war, causes, responses and the initial rush to militancy.

warspite1

So is that what he's doing when he's not hanging out in The Thread?

[VPaulus]

I also suggest the reading of William Jannen's "The Lions of July: Prelude to War, 1914".

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I enjoyed the "Great Courses: World War I: The Great War" audio book lectures by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius. I checked these out from my library and recommend them. It's 36 lectures, but they're well done. The first 4-5 lectures deal with the instigation of the war, causes, responses and the initial rush to militancy.

warspite1

So is that what he's doing when he's not hanging out in The Thread?

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I enjoyed the "Great Courses: World War I: The Great War" audio book lectures by Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius. I checked these out from my library and recommend them. It's 36 lectures, but they're well done. The first 4-5 lectures deal with the instigation of the war, causes, responses and the initial rush to militancy.

warspite1

So is that what he's doing when he's not hanging out in The Thread?

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

warspite1

[:)]

[operating]

Found this program pretty interesting about the week to week events about WW I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FgaL0x ... w3KxuKsMvT

[Fred98]

In the years leading up to the Great War, there were a few wars in the Balkans. Everyone thought this would be another small war in the Balkans.

However the Ottoman Empire attacked Serbia centuries ago and Russia became friends with Serbia. Russia decided to assist Serbia and then the Germans intervened.
.

[bayonetbrant]

As taught by Dr John Riddle, Professor of History at NC State

Croeses fell off his horse.

[Capt. Harlock]

In general, I think that no-one wanted it - they all thought they could get their goals without a general war

I'm afraid I can't agree. Germany and France knew that sooner or later they would come to blows over Alsace and Lorraine. There may have been those who wanted peace in the German government, but the German military had their toy -- the Von Schlieffen Plan -- that they were just itching to try. Fighting both France and Russia (and Belgium into the bargain) is a general war no matter how you slice it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

There was a discussion quite a while back, probably a couple years ago now, concerning who ought to be credited with starting World War I. Several seemed to maintain it was Germany for giving Austria-Hungary a "blank check" to invade Serbia. I don't remember if this was explored or not but what was the verdict on Russia? Didn't Russia come to Serbia's aid and essentially strengthen Serbia's resolve not to give into Austria-Hungary's demands? I confess I'm not at all familiar with the history of WW1. I am more familiar with WWII and I suspect Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union may have been spurred on by the perception that Russia's involvement in things set the wheels in motion for WW1.

warspite1

I don't think memories of WWI (as far as Russia was concerned) had any role in the thinking of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler wanted to ensure that Germany was self-sufficient. That she could never be blockaded into submission again (whether she actually was or not is not really relevant). He looked at the USA and wanted that for Germany. Russia (Soviet Union) was the only place that could provide 'Lebensraum' and his wet dream of a Greater German Empire stretching all the way to the Urals. Oil of the Caucasus, wheat from the Ukraine, plus all the other minerals and resources that such a huge land mass can provide; that was his goal, not some revenge mission for what happened in 1914.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


...

I don't think memories of WWI (as far as Russia was concerned) had any role in the thinking of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler wanted to ensure that Germany was self-sufficient. That she could never be blockaded into submission again (whether she actually was or not is not really relevant). He looked at the USA and wanted that for Germany. Russia (Soviet Union) was the only place that could provide 'Lebensraum' and his wet dream of a Greater German Empire stretching all the way to the Urals. Oil of the Caucasus, wheat from the Ukraine, plus all the other minerals and resources that such a huge land mass can provide; that was his goal, not some revenge mission for what happened in 1914.

It might actually. The 'railway war' of 1917 is often cited in German memoires of how they envisaged the second half of Barbarossa working out, after they had destroyed the Red Army west of the Dneipr. So they had a model of how easy it was to advance in Russia once the main armies had fallen apart.

In addition, their occupation of the Ukraine from 1917-18 was relatively easy for them. Mainly as even though the Civil War had already started neither the Soviets nor the Whites wanted to tangle with the Germans so there was neither military operations nor an attempt at creating civil unrest in that region till after the German withdrawal in December 1918. Contrast this with the sheer chaos the French and Greeks walked into when they intervened in the Ukraine in 1919.

Not saying this directly affected the politics behind Barbarossa, but it did influence how the German commanders envisaged the war working out.

[Fred98]

The Gene Jeanie says that I am more right that you are!