Matrix Games Forums

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

The main culprit imo is Count Berchtold followed closely by the Kaiser for his casual incompetence if nothing else. WWI has to be the most unnecessary slaughter in the history of warfare.

The Czar. [:)] Russia was the first major power to order mobilization with the intent on attacking another major power-not Austria or Germany. Seriously though, the series of alliances and national frictions was going to end in war. No one country or man can carry the blame-certainly not Germany as was propagated for so long. If it was ok for Russia to honor its agreement with Serbia, then it must be ok for Germany to honor its agreement with A/H.
A/H was the first major power to use its army, but there was still no general mobilization for a real war-until Russia moved. It just isn't fun to blame the Austro/Hungarian Empire for WW1. Who are those people anyway??[;)]

Its funny, or sad-that the whole thing could have blown over if the Serbs had allowed the Austrians to conduct the investigation of the assassination inside Serbia. I don't recall A/H's actual demands-perhaps those were over the top. This is something that seems to be a matter of course now days. The FBI and other nations national police move around quite freely now.

Hmm, now lets think about this; Serbia was protecting a murderous terrorists' group and a major power sought to put the terrorist out of action. Serbia refused, so the major power acted to take them out-after consulting allies. Then the wold explodes in war. Seems like some things do get better as time goes on.[:D]

The Origins of the World War by Sidney Fay discusses the causes of the war. It is the book that inspired Allan Calhamer to create the boardgame Diplomacy.

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?

I think it would be a long list of names....

Austria-Hungary's ultimatum against Serbia a stupid move. Considering the fact that Russia was with the Serbs as well as being part of the Triple Entente, I think it was only a matter of time. Russia's mobilization only provoked Germany more.

Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia > Russia comes to aid Serbia > But Germany is backing Austria SO Germany must go to war with Russia > Because Russia is part of the Triple Entente, France and Great Britain must help Russia > World War I.

A little conflict between Austria-Hungary and the Slavs becomes a World massacre because of all the stupid alliances.

Well, that's my take on it.

I blame Steam

Apple [:'(]

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

I blame Steam

Damn-glad I was not sipping coffee when I read that.[:D]

Anyway, here is another, sort of different, thought on the matter. Using the Roman legal adage of "when in doubt, ask who profits". SO, who profited? Banks-big banks-all around the world. How much? A historian named Cyril Falls calculated that the cost of the war was equal to building a 4 foot tall by 2 foot think wall of gold from the Swiss border, following the trench line all the way to the Channel. He also broke it down as to what that could have purchased for communities around the globe. I forgot the details (still have the book though), but can say it would have been an astounding improvement in how people lived-everywhere.

Are banks really that powerful? DO they work in concert-even if on opposing "sides". That's the trillion dollar question. Funny banking tidbit, Paul Warburg was the architect (intensive lobbyist) of the US Federal Reserve (founded in 1913). His brother, Max Warburg, was a close adviser to the Kaiser and also handled the bank loans to fund the commie Revolution in Russia. Max Warburg continued in high finance, serving on the board of the Riechsbank starting in 1933-for a while anyway. He eventually emigrated to the US to help out family activities there. Do bankers love war? Maybe not. Is war the best thing ever devised for banks? It surely seems like it is. Is it possible that huge banks might encourage an occasional feeling of marshal prowess among leaders? Gee, I wonder.

Not too much happens in this world without money-war included. There must be a way for money to appear from thin air to entice leaders to thinking that they can pay for all the cool toys that war demands. Generals can't do it.

My rant for the evening.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

I blame Steam

Damn-glad I was not sipping coffee when I read that.[:D]

Anyway, here is another, sort of different, thought on the matter. Using the Roman legal adage of "when in doubt, ask who profits". SO, who profited? Banks-big banks-all around the world. How much? A historian named Cyril Falls calculated that the cost of the war was equal to building a 4 foot tall by 2 foot think wall of gold from the Swiss border, following the trench line all the way to the Channel. He also broke it down as to what that could have purchased for communities around the globe. I forgot the details (still have the book though), but can say it would have been an astounding improvement in how people lived-everywhere.

Are banks really that powerful? DO they work in concert-even if on opposing "sides". That's the trillion dollar question. Funny banking tidbit, Paul Warburg was the architect (intensive lobbyist) of the US Federal Reserve (founded in 1913). His brother, Max Warburg, was a close adviser to the Kaiser and also handled the bank loans to fund the commie Revolution in Russia. Max Warburg continued in high finance, serving on the board of the Riechsbank starting in 1933-for a while anyway. He eventually emigrated to the US to help out family activities there. Do bankers love war? Maybe not. Is war the best thing ever devised for banks? It surely seems like it is. Is it possible that huge banks might encourage an occasional feeling of marshal prowess among leaders? Gee, I wonder.

Not too much happens in this world without money-war included. There must be a way for money to appear from thin air to entice leaders to thinking that they can pay for all the cool toys that war demands. Generals can't do it.

My rant for the evening.

Warspite1

I know bankers are not the most popular people in the world at the moment (easy targets for grubby politicians trying to deflect criticism as they have their own snouts in the trough - certainly in this country) but are you really suggesting that banks/bankers are responsible for WWI? How? Who? I don`t think the Kaiser needed anyone encouraging his sense of "marshal prowess", and why are these bankers - whoever they are - suddenly immune from the possibility that their country may lose any war - and all that means?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

I blame Steam

Damn-glad I was not sipping coffee when I read that.[:D]

Anyway, here is another, sort of different, thought on the matter. Using the Roman legal adage of "when in doubt, ask who profits". SO, who profited? Banks-big banks-all around the world. How much? A historian named Cyril Falls calculated that the cost of the war was equal to building a 4 foot tall by 2 foot think wall of gold from the Swiss border, following the trench line all the way to the Channel. He also broke it down as to what that could have purchased for communities around the globe. I forgot the details (still have the book though), but can say it would have been an astounding improvement in how people lived-everywhere.

Are banks really that powerful? DO they work in concert-even if on opposing "sides". That's the trillion dollar question. Funny banking tidbit, Paul Warburg was the architect (intensive lobbyist) of the US Federal Reserve (founded in 1913). His brother, Max Warburg, was a close adviser to the Kaiser and also handled the bank loans to fund the commie Revolution in Russia. Max Warburg continued in high finance, serving on the board of the Riechsbank starting in 1933-for a while anyway. He eventually emigrated to the US to help out family activities there. Do bankers love war? Maybe not. Is war the best thing ever devised for banks? It surely seems like it is. Is it possible that huge banks might encourage an occasional feeling of marshal prowess among leaders? Gee, I wonder.

Not too much happens in this world without money-war included. There must be a way for money to appear from thin air to entice leaders to thinking that they can pay for all the cool toys that war demands. Generals can't do it.

My rant for the evening.

Warspite1

I know bankers are not the most popular people in the world at the moment (easy targets for grubby politicians trying to deflect criticism as they have their own snouts in the trough - certainly in this country) but are you really suggesting that banks/bankers are responsible for WWI? How? Who? I don`t think the Kaiser needed anyone encouraging his sense of "marshal prowess", and why are these bankers - whoever they are - suddenly immune from the possibility that their country may lose any war - and all that means?

Win or loose, they generally get their money.
If you consider that debt to a banking system allowed for increased influence by banks, then you might look at it differently. Also consider that international fanciers do not share similar goals as a common nation state citizen. As one prominent fellow long ago said; "the greatest power on earth is compound interest"-something like that.

Big banks have been despised for a very long time-it is not a recent development. My signature line is from circa 1802. There are better ones than that-I will have to get an update soon.[;)]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro




Damn-glad I was not sipping coffee when I read that.[:D]

Anyway, here is another, sort of different, thought on the matter. Using the Roman legal adage of "when in doubt, ask who profits". SO, who profited? Banks-big banks-all around the world. How much? A historian named Cyril Falls calculated that the cost of the war was equal to building a 4 foot tall by 2 foot think wall of gold from the Swiss border, following the trench line all the way to the Channel. He also broke it down as to what that could have purchased for communities around the globe. I forgot the details (still have the book though), but can say it would have been an astounding improvement in how people lived-everywhere.

Are banks really that powerful? DO they work in concert-even if on opposing "sides". That's the trillion dollar question. Funny banking tidbit, Paul Warburg was the architect (intensive lobbyist) of the US Federal Reserve (founded in 1913). His brother, Max Warburg, was a close adviser to the Kaiser and also handled the bank loans to fund the commie Revolution in Russia. Max Warburg continued in high finance, serving on the board of the Riechsbank starting in 1933-for a while anyway. He eventually emigrated to the US to help out family activities there. Do bankers love war? Maybe not. Is war the best thing ever devised for banks? It surely seems like it is. Is it possible that huge banks might encourage an occasional feeling of marshal prowess among leaders? Gee, I wonder.

Not too much happens in this world without money-war included. There must be a way for money to appear from thin air to entice leaders to thinking that they can pay for all the cool toys that war demands. Generals can't do it.

My rant for the evening.

Warspite1

I know bankers are not the most popular people in the world at the moment (easy targets for grubby politicians trying to deflect criticism as they have their own snouts in the trough - certainly in this country) but are you really suggesting that banks/bankers are responsible for WWI? How? Who? I don`t think the Kaiser needed anyone encouraging his sense of "marshal prowess", and why are these bankers - whoever they are - suddenly immune from the possibility that their country may lose any war - and all that means?

Win or loose, they generally get their money.

Warspite1

....unless they`re dead of course, having backed the wrong horse [;)]

Whilst I don`t disagree with a lot of the sentiment, I just find the idea of major conflicts being in some way engineered by a gang of bankers, using politicans and royalty as puppets, too far fetched.

In 1930`s Germany it was the other way around. Hitler was going to do his Lebensraum thing regardless - it was up to his bankers and industrialists to make it happen and provide him the armed forces he wanted for his hideous ends.

WW2 is perhaps a better example of what I'm talking about.

I don't think that there were very many strategists that thought that Germany could maintain peace with a NAZI government. In the flurry of elections in '30 through '32 the NAZI party was nearly bankrupted-or was. They were loosing seats. Bankers-and not just German ones, came to the rescue. I'm not sure about European support, but there were US banks involved in bank rolling the Party. Any savvy London Banker would have been quick to help set up a situation where they could double the profits of WW1-if they could.

Hi V22, recently cutting and trimming counters I was looking for something to while away the time and remembered that I had a DVD set I'd never looked at before. Here are 2 wonderful resources if you want something to watch and listen to regarding WW1 if you have the time:


DVD The First World War The Complete Series

This is just a fantastic look at the entire war from root causes, through suffering to conclusion. I learned so much from it and kicked myself for never watching before. There are no re-creations or re-enactments in this 10 hour baby like so many cheap documentaries on TV right now. This ranks right up there or even better than The World at War imo.


Audiobook The Guns of August Unabridged

This is the classic book on the root causes of the war and the initial miliatary clashes that could have won it for the Germans. I'll be buying this soon, once I've finished listening to an audiobook on Operation Anaconda.

Though relatively expensive compared to paperbacks, I find these audibooks great for background listenening whilst doing other things like playing games! Technology does have some great benefits.

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

WW2 is perhaps a better example of what I'm talking about.

I don't think that there were very many strategists that thought that Germany could maintain peace with a NAZI government. In the flurry of elections in '30 through '32 the NAZI party was nearly bankrupted-or was. They were loosing seats. Bankers-and not just German ones, came to the rescue. I'm not sure about European support, but there were US banks involved in bank rolling the Party. Any savvy London Banker would have been quick to help set up a situation where they could double the profits of WW1-if they could.

Warspite1

But this is where I think I struggle with your point. So the Nazi party needed funding, and no doubt that funding came from a variety of sources. Maybe some of that came from banks. But that's what banks do - lend money. If you are right and they did, may be the reason the banks lent the money - or perhaps made a donation (as companies are entitled to do) was because they believed that a right wing government was a better option than a Communist one. Fear of Communism in thirties Europe was every bit as strong as in the US in the fifties. That is no different from a company supporting the Republicans or the Democrats or the Conservatives over Labour or whatever.

But what you seem to suggest is that these bankers only bankrolled the party because they thought that by doing so, Hitler would come to power and there would be a great big war and the bankers can all "double our profits".

Why would "ANY savvy London banker" bankroll the Nazi party? So regardless of a man's political persuasion or religious beliefs, you think just because he is a "savvy London banker", he would support such a vile monstrous regime because he wants a war?

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

In the flurry of elections in '30 through '32 the NAZI party was nearly bankrupted-or was.

Well, the party's cash box was empty, at least. The party was not bankrupt, though. Before the party had been re-established (in 1925, I think) - the original party/movement had been banned due to the events around the Hitler-coup 1923 [the attempt to gain power by force in Bavaria]), the party was saved in last-ditch attempts quite some times. Often, donations or loans from individuals saved the party or its publications literally in the last minute. On one occasion, in 1923, Hitler went to hold speeches at some locations in Switzerland and came back with donations from (national-)conservative circles, amounting from 30,000 - 45,000 Swiss Francs (I don't recall the exact amount anymore), at a time where such amounts of foreign currencies used to be worth a lot (!) more during the German hyperinflation.

Goebbels stated around 1923 or 1924 (I think):

ORIGINAL: Joseph Goebbels

[my rough translation]

"(......) Noone wants to grant loans to us. Once power has been seized, one can get enough money, but then one doesn't need the money anymore. If one hasn't seized power [yet], money is needed, but then one can't get it."

Individuals had to help out with security deposits, often in form of real estates, cars, or even furnitures or even works of art, and, of course, cash.

Since, during the second half of the 1920s (until the big Wall Street crash in 1929), the economical situation in Germany appeared to have stabilized to some extent, the NSDAP lost popularity. In 1928, on the federal Reichstags elections, the party had received a crushing low amount of votes, in particular 2.6 % of the votes. One conclusion after this bashing was that Goebbels ordered to reduce the amount of anti-jewish propaganda, and the tactic (since 1925) to pursuit legal ways to get to power was emphasized even more.

But in 1930, due to the worldwide financial crisis, and due to the party's launch of cascaded propaganda campaigns between 1930 and 1932, the party's popularity had climbed to an all-time high. The number of party members had climbed from ~27,000 (1925) to ~130,000 in 1930, to 850,000 in January 1933.
Between 1925 and 1930 The NSDAP took over the idea of the Social Democratic Party (SPD, somewhat like the Democrats in the US, the SPD should not be confused with Socialists/Communists, tho) to collect membership fees, and became one of the 2 parties that demanded the highest fees from its members.
During the same time frame, Hitler used to travel all over Germany and hold speeches to agitate the masses on various events, taking 1 Reichsmark entrance fee. Quite some amount, if you keep in mind that the average income used to be around 100 Reichsmark.
That said, the party's main funding during the late 1920s did not consist of collections from industrial corporations or banks but of collections among party members and wealthy individuals (to some extent).
Many German industrial leaders were still irritated, as the "Socialist" (National Socialist German Worker's Party) in the party name did make them suspicious or rather observant, as they were not sure about the NSDAP's goals, and Hitler avoided to be specific in order to tailor his goals to the different audiences (say workers, industrial clubs, medium sized business).

Until 1930, there was indeed a left-wing (that had formed around Otto Strasser, supported by Goebbels, by the way, until Hitler prevailed), that had more similarities regarding political demands and goals with the communists than any other party in Germany, it was just their "racial" approach that kept them from joining the communists.

That said, Hitler could not count on industrial magnates (with the exception of Fritz Thyssen, Henry Ford with a donation in 1920 and also with an annual amount of 50,000 Reichsmark as "birthday present" for Hitler, a portrait of Ford used to be on display in the HQ of the NSDAP Bavaria... figure why [:D]) until after 1933, when German industrial tycoons could clearly see that Hitler wanted to gear up (thus he needed an effective Army - so it was evident that armament orders were about to fill the industrial cash boxes). Starting in 1933, corporations and tycoons started to make donations that used to be way above 1 million Reichsmark per donator.

So, initially, financial support came from right-wing or national conservative individuals, Ford and Thyssen included, and -most notably- from exiled Russian conservatives who were strong supporters of the Tzar and who strongly opposed the Russian bolshewiks. Some (rather shady sources) claim that around 500 Million Reichsmark found their way to Hitler before 1930, through such Russian supporters. Given the financial situation of the party before 1930, this seems unlikely, though.

Whatever the case, later on - in the main -, funds came from party members and a couple of banks (rarely and rather low amounts, when banks were involved they rather granted loans to the party, and even those were mostly refused, as illustrated by the Goebbels quote above).

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

They were loosing seats. Bankers-and not just German ones, came to the rescue.

The (national) election results from 1930 to 1933:

• 1930: 18.3% (14th of September)
• 1932: 37.4% (31st of July)
• 1932: 33.1% (6th of November)
• 1933: 43.9% (5th of March)

The November results were indeed something of a setback and could be seen as sort of crisis, but the party had managed to become the party with the most well-balanced set of members, where the better part was recruited from middle class (this German term refers to medium sized businesses/owners, they still employ the most people here, just like back then) and a strong worker contingent.

Still, it wasn't until Hitler started to mingle the Versailles treaty with the Young-plan in 1929, along with the subsequent agitation against the then (mingled) subject, by stating that it would result in a total ruin of the German economy, that the party gained a vital amount of popularity (in fact this kind of agitation doubled the popularity [compare 1930's and 1932's vote figures]).
In late 1932, after the series of successful campaigns, and despite the financial support from magnates like F. Thyssen, Albert Vögler, or Emil Kirdorf, there was no money left to finance another campaign (November elections), which resulted in the loss of votes/seats.
Editorial articles of major German newspapers already envisioned the demise of the Nazi party.
In a last-ditch effort, the party mobilized each and everything to achieve a good result for the election of the state parliament of Lippe, in mid-January. The NSDAP received 39.5 % and could gain 5% more than compared to the national elections in November 1932.
The Nazi propaganda celebrated this as turning point, and it may have indeed contributed to Ex-Chancelor Papen's secret offer (he was assigned by President Hindenburg to form a new goverment) that Hitler should become Chancelor.
Papen's idea behind that was to wear out and control Hitler in this position, as Hitler had no experience on the stage of politics. Well, Hitler did not dance to Papen's tune, not at all, and managed to seize power legally, with the help of the Zentrum party, THE christian-conservative party, 2 months later (the only party opposing Hitler's "enabling act" in the Reichstag was in fact the SPD).

That said, there were no banks involved during that time.

Such theories, that - through the whole Young-plan and the Dawes-plan thing (where the latter detailed both Germany's reparation payments for WW1 AND international bonds/loans to boost Germany's economy) - US banks or bankers like J.P. Morgan et al were involved, were mainly published by Anthony C. Sutton. Morgan and other US individuals or institutions were indeed involved or even part of the particular commissions that either set up or directed the streams of money, but his speculations go over the top, imho.

Sutton comes up with details and partial aspects that are partially really really interesting, like a trip of one of Hitler's contributors (who was the most prominent money "collector" until around 1924, forgot his name) to the US, who boldly bought a ticket to get on the same ship as Siegfried and Winifred Wagner (son and daughter-in-law of the famous composer), who themselfs were strong supporters of Hitler, just to hook up and get a "ticket" to an invitation to a dinner with Henry Ford. This can be indeed seen as follow-up and strengthening of Hitler's ties to Ford, after Ford's initial donation in 1920. Still, Sutton fails to deliver sufficient evidence for many other ties, in particular ties to US banks or bankers, and also for alledged ties where he claims that the rise of companies like IG Farben had been built and planned by Wall Street, partially through the Dawes loans, or through direct (but hidden) Wall Street control and funding.

The majority of Sutton's "findings" should be seen as conspiration theory thing, there are only few (admittedly interesting) details that turn out to be true/have substance in his works.

Sorry for the lengthy post

Back on topic, get hold of David Fromkin's Europe's Last Summer.  It's a new scholarship on the July Crisis that is well worth a look.

http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Last-Summer-Started-Great/dp/037572575X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268244203&sr=1-1

For insight into why Britain went to war, which actually had little to do with the invasion of Belgium by Germany see Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_15?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+pity+of+war+niall+ferguson&sprefix=The+pity+of+war

To demolish the "War by Timetable" legend of A.J.P. Taylor and others see The Schlieffen Plan, Critique of a Myth by Gerhard Ritter.

http://www.amazon.com/Schlieffen-Plan-Critique-Myth/dp/B001BTORUI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268244464&sr=1-2

Lot's of fertile material out there, look around and draw your own conclusions.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

For insight into why Britain went to war, which actually had little to do with the invasion of Belgium by Germany see Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War.

A quote from a user who wrote a comment (on Amazon) about this book:

ORIGINAL amazon user comment:

"The book reads as if it were ghost-written by Alfred von Wegerer, the head of Germany's Center for the Study of the Causes of the War, a quasi-think tank offshoot of the War Guilt Section of the German Foreign Ministry in the 1920s and 30s whose sole mission was to spin the history of World War I in Germany's favor. First, he blames his native Britain for just about everything: diplomatic blundering that led to the start of the war; entry into the war that made it a global conflict; and a contribution to the war that made it stretch on for four long, miserable years. Second, he claims that a German victory would have just led to a benign, EU-like arrangment on the continent. Again, I say: It is the heterodox approach and perspective of this book that makes it well worth reading, not its iconoclastic message.

In closing, if you are looking for one book to read on the First World War, this is not the one to get. If, however, you are familiar with the subject and are looking for a book that will challenge your assumptions and perhaps make you rethink your understanding the seminal conflict of the twentieth century, The Pity of the War may be well-worth your time."

So I'm not sure whether your book recommendations would enlighten me (who never dug deep into the reasons for the outbreak of WW1).

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

... A little conflict between Austria-Hungary and the Slavs becomes a World massacre because of all the stupid alliances.

Well, that's my take on it.

It was a powderkeg just waiting for a match; the assasination of the archduke ignited it, but any spark would have set all the opposing Euro alliances into motion, and there was no "fail safe" in place to stop it.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread... WWI was so unnecessary yet so inevitable. It is one of the most fascinating(and tragic) periods in world history.

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, including this doozy:

(5) To accept the collaboration in Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy;

Serbia replied meekly and agreed to comply with almost every demand, with the exception of this reply to the demand listed above:

...As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution...

Austria's Foreign Minister, Count Berchtold, anticipated as much and convinced Emperor Franz Joesph that Russia would not risk a general conflagration by coming to Serbia's rescue if attacked by Austria. In this belief, they were sadly mistaken. Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, 1914....and within a few short days, the die was cast.

World War I had been brewing for at least the previous ten years, however, so if the Austrians had not begun things, someone else would have.