Who caused WW1 - revisited

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

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.

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.

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

warspite1

Just to be clear though loki, I was answering Gary's point about what could have been behind AH's decision to invade as opposed to the way it panned out - or was thought it might - pan out. I don't recall anything in Mein Kampf or subsequent speeches to suggest his attention toward the Soviet Union was anything other than the wish for Lebensraum.

[WingedIncubus]

One thing to keep in mind in Germany's calculations involving Russia was that in 1914 - just like with Hitler in 1940-1941 - Russia was in the midst of reorganizing its Army and increasing its industrial armament production. Germany's General Chief of Staff's estimation was that within a few years, Russia would have more machine guns and heavy guns than Germany. Plus, it was widely known that the French public was itching for a fight (albeit ideally with the Germans provoked as the aggressor), and the newspaper (bribed with Russian money) was selling Russia's incredible numerical advantage as their ally which domestically fueled revanchism against Germany because of Alsace-Lorraine.

A conflict with Russia could not conceivably be separated from war with France - because a Russian defeat without France intervening would be disastrous for the latter's aims to contain Germany. Plus, no one would trust France again as a defensive ally and diplomatic partner if it cowered out of a war against Germany and defending its ally in the East. Plus, let's say that Germany mobilizes for a Russia First plan, then France mobilizes, then what? War with France on German soil right in the Ruhr basin area, where most of German's industries are situated?

Waiting for Germany until 1917 and over meant that it would find himself pincered between two fully armed and organized foes. If things were coming to shove and war with Russia assuredly meant war with France, better do it now than later. The thing is, no one expected how much of a pushover the early war Russians would be.

[decaro]

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.

warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.

warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

[altipueri]

Princip was lucky, his first attempt failed and if the archduke's driver had taken the correct turn on leaving the hospital after visiting the victims of the first attempt they wouldn't have passed Princip who was sulking in a cafe. He saw his chance, pulled his revolver and fired without really aiming.

Serbia basically agreed to everything in the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. So, AH + Germany definitely guilty.

The fact there was pressure building between the great powers doesn't mean it was OK to invade Belgium because that happened to be part of War Plan of the week.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.

warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

true but Europe managed to avoid general war over the earlier Balkan conflicts and the various clashes between Britain and France at the end of the 19C and the escalating set of disputes between Britain and Germany from 1901-13.

Equally the Serbs were not the only state in Europe that had either infiltrated an existing terrorist group or was running its own - to achieve goals or destabilise a rival.

Generally by early 1914, a lot of European diplomats were starting to think that the sequence of crises/disputes from the late 1890s to 1913 had started to calm down and that a general war was less likely.

So it becomes interesting to try and work out why this particular crisis (which was relatively minor) did set off the chain to a general European war?

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

The 'blank cheque' given by Germany was under the assumption that Austria invades Serbia and occupy Sarajevo immediately and quickly, like now, before Russia could even prepare to mobilize. Occupation, not annexation. This was made very clear to Count Szőgyény-Marich by both Kaiser Wilhelm and Bethmann-Hollweg, but the Count was a very old geezer who most probably over-exaggerated Germany's support in his report back to Vienna. It was not a "blank cheque" to send Europe into a total war.

Such a reasoning was not bad, from a brinksmanship point-of-view: Austria did have the casus belli - after all, everyone in the know had a sense Serbia was involved, some way or another, in assassinating Franz Ferdinand and the country had the reputation of being a rogue state anyway. They were arguably justified to intervene against Serbia, but what other Great Powers did not want was Austria annexing Serbia. Never Russia would be allowing being cheated again like they had been in 1908's Bosnian Crisis: They had made been to look like total buffoons because of Count Isvolsky's reckless negotiating and because of this had Bosnia snatched right under their nose. Russia backing down again would be disastrous for Nicholas II's government.

Acting now would put Europe in face of an fait accompli, no one would go to all-out war for Serbia, Serbia is not annexed yet, and then the Kaiser could organize a peace conference to settle the Serbian issue once and for all while mollifying Russia away from France. What a coup it would have been for Germany! That is why the Kaiser was so incensed when he came back urgently from his vacation in Norway - not only the Austrians were not even close to Sarajevo, but they had sent an ultimatum that painted Austria as the warmonger in Europe, which got the British to intervene (the last thing the Kaiser wanted) while allowing time to Russia to bring in troops and posture that they will defend Serbia.

The closer Germany got to all-out war, the more frenzied the Kaiser became to have it remain a limited conflict. However, the machine of mobilization tables is merciless and uncompromising.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

true but Europe managed to avoid general war over the earlier Balkan conflicts and the various clashes between Britain and France at the end of the 19C and the escalating set of disputes between Britain and Germany from 1901-13.

Equally the Serbs were not the only state in Europe that had either infiltrated an existing terrorist group or was running its own - to achieve goals or destabilise a rival....

Col. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand succeeded in achieving its goal of assassination and in the process destabilized the entire region once hostilities involved other countries that had alliances with either Serbia or Austro-Hungary.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Although Serbian intrigue started it, when it was over Germany was forced to pick up the tab.

warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time. But once the assassination took place, there were so many decisions, so many courses of action, so many opportunities (taken and lost) that could have stopped what we know as World War I. Sarajevo was a catalyst – it got a ball rolling. Where that ball ended up was anyone’s guess. It had to be steered in the path it ultimately took. The death of the Archduke – as humiliating as it was for AH – could not lead to a Europe-wide conflagration without a lot of additional ‘assistance’ from those with the power to make things happen – i.e. a trigger or two.

It’s like the simplistic notion that the Treaty of Versailles caused World War II or the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for Hitler and the Nazi party. No it didn’t. Versailles helped create the conditions in which extreme politics – of all different hue – was able to begin or re-appear. But one only has to look at all the things that happened – global economic depression, failure of the League of Nations, the withdrawal of the US, the rise of Hitler, of Stalin, of Mussolini, Japanese expansion, the fact that the west sought to appease to prevent war rather than take a firm stance, the economic (and thus military) weakness of the British and French post WWI, the underestimation of Hitler by the German people – and those in power in particular when Hitler’s popularity was on the wane – there are just so many things that happened between the signing of Versailles and September 1939 that blaming Versailles is simply wrong.

[Orm]

Very well said. But at the same time isn't it simplistic to put so much blame on Germany for that "blank cheque"?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Very well said. But at the same time isn't it simplistic to put so much blame on Germany for that "blank cheque"?

warspite1

I give the bulk of the blame to Germany because without that blank cheque Austria-Hungary simply cannot declare war on Serbia - the problem remains localised. Of course it would be nice to think that in an ideal world [:(] the Kaiser, the King and the Czar can all get together and decide on appropriate action to be taken against what was state sponsored terrorism by the Serbs. Let's be honest, whatever one may feel about A-H, they had bloody good reason to be angry and those three - as monarchs - would likely be a tad alarmed at that development.

Was the blank cheque issued with a view to bringing on a general war? Of that I am not certain - but at best it was damn irresponsible - and at worst it was issued with just that goal.

I don't believe that any of the major powers were completely blameless, but Germany - whether the Kaiser or the General Staff or both - take the lion's share.

[Chickenboy]

Detective: (Michael Palin) What's all this then, Amen!

M: Are you the church police?

All the police officers: (in unison) Ho, Yes!

M: There's another dead bishop on the landing, vicar sargeant!

Detective: Uh, Detective Parson, madam. I see... suffrican, or diocisian?

M: 'Ow should I know?

D: It's tatooed on the back o' their neck. (spying the tart) 'Ere, is that rat tart?

M: yes.

D: Disgusting! Right! Men, the chase is on! Now we should all kneel!

(they all kneel)

All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo croaked Leicester!

(thunder)

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Detective: (Michael Palin) What's all this then, Amen!

M: Are you the church police?

All the police officers: (in unison) Ho, Yes!

M: There's another dead bishop on the landing, vicar sargeant!

Detective: Uh, Detective Parson, madam. I see... suffrican, or diocisian?

M: 'Ow should I know?

D: It's tatooed on the back o' their neck. (spying the tart) 'Ere, is that rat tart?

M: yes.

D: Disgusting! Right! Men, the chase is on! Now we should all kneel!

(they all kneel)

All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo croaked Leicester!

(thunder)

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.

[&o][&o][&o]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Yes but surely 'Serbian intrigue' didn't start World War I. There had been plenty of Balkan incidents and even Balkan wars. One can argue Sarajevo was a catalyst, but there was much, much, that had to happen before a world war developed. Germany, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view, 'picked up the tab' because they gave Austria-Hungary the blank cheque - without which AH would have had to back down - or at least take less drastic measures against Serbia.

Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

[Jagdtiger14]

Funny how France seems to be going blameless. Consider this: The seeds of WWI were sown way before in France's 2nd Empire (Emile Ollivier specifically). France asked for war, lost, then in the 3rd Republic bemoaned the loss of a tiny territory which mostly had a majority German people in it (the northern tip had majority French, but was of strategic importance in case of another war). The foreign policy of France's 3rd Republic: its policy to isolate Germany by use of various treaties (Franco-Russian Alliance, Entante Cordiale, and finally the Triple Entente).

Others were also at fault (Germany/Kaiser for being arrogant perhaps, and also not adhering to Bismarck's #1 foreign policy rule; Britain for its jealousy of the shiny new German fleet/rapid naval expansion; and so on). The catalyst was the assassination...but French foreign policy and their great desire for another war for me was the biggest factor.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




Surely the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke by the secret Serbian terrorist group led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijevic triggered World War I. Dimitrijevic's Black Hand -- which had close ties to the Serbian army -- had recruited Gavrillo Princip and others.

warspite1

No. It triggered a crisis in the northern Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – and not for the first time....

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

warspite1

Removing most of my first paragraph maybe helps make the point you want to make, but it also removes much of the point I was making. There was nothing simple about the events of July 1914 - I don't think it correct to break down those tumultuous events into one sentence.

Get any ten historians together and you are likely to get 8 different culprits or combination of culprits for WWI and the fact is, we will never ever know now who/what exactly was the cause of the war. Much evidence has been lost/destroyed plus maybe as much again was in the hearts and minds of the individuals there at the time - and they ain't sayin' or their writings after the event contain a more rose-tinted version....

When the actual cause of the war is unknown, arguing about what was/wasn't a catalyst/trigger is maybe a little superfluous but hey, its a fun exercise for those of us that get a buzz from history. so in a nutshell:

- You're happy to say the assassination started the war because it sucked in other nations, although one could ask what was it contained within the treaty with AH that meant that Germany had to take the action it did?

- I say that is too simplistic and the assassination was merely a catalyst that began a process; a process that did not have to end in war without direction (intended or otherwise) from party (or parties) elsewhere.

Fine, we'll agree to disagree [:)].

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.

warspite1

Maybe down-playing Ferdinand's importance to Austria-Hungary a tad given that he was heir to the throne! [;)]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

...

It triggered the last crisis between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

One month after the assassination of its archduke, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, sucking in all other nations that had alliances with either nation, thereby starting the first world war.

True up to a point, but why this assassination leading to this outcome? Between the actions of various Anarchist and Nationalist terrorist groups the period 1890-1914 saw a lot of members of various Royal families killed. Some of these groups had sponsors in other states.

There was nothing a-priori unusual about the assasination in Sarajevo (by that I am using the term in its statistical sense) - these things happened, were almost seen as an occupational hazard. So a not especially remarkable killing of a relatively minor royal managed to kick off the Great War.

I'd agree its the proximate cause, but its not the reason, or Europe would have seen major wars in the 1890s.

warspite1

Maybe down-playing Ferdinand's importance to Austria-Hungary a tad given that he was heir to the throne! [;)]

well ... ok. maybe a wee bit of hyperbole there [8D]. But other similar assasinations did manage to kill off actual rulers and its not as Ferdinand was hugely popular among the rest of the Hapsburgs