The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

What really started World War 1

Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Whenever you ask someone who started World War I, they almost always say one thing: Germany. Granted, Germany was one of the strongest military powers in Europe by 1914 and it's Army rivalled Russia's and France, and it's navy matched Britain's, but does militarism really mean any one nation is responsible for a war. Russia didn't start World War II, yet had a powerful military, if not led well. Infact, German and Russian diplomats tried to negotiate just before the war began, but neither could agree, and with both militaries mobilized, war was inevitable.

Germany entered the war for the reason of defending their ally, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Their prince, Franz Ferdidand was actually a champion of peace with Russia's ally, Serbia. When touring Sarajevo in July, 1914, he was shot by a Serb nationalist, who believed that Ferdidand wanted to take control of Serbia.

This was echoed throught Serbia, and the assasination sent Austria off the edge. Russia however, made the war, that without its intervention, may have just been another balkans war. Russia's mobilization convinced Germany to step in and defend her own ally, leading to the catastrophe and horror that was World War I.

I do not admire any German governments before the current one,
but I do know that Germany was, in a way, tricked into war.


Kor

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 30087
    • View Profile
I heard, forgot where, that the real reason WW1 happened was all the alliances.  So that one shot spread out to effect many countries since this country was an ally of that one with certain agreements.


f-22 "raptor" ace

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 6830
    • View Profile
Quote from: Kor,Sep 8 2012 on  09:28 PM
I heard, forgot where, that the real reason WW1 happened was all the alliances.  So that one shot spread out to effect many countries since this country was an ally of that one with certain agreements.
^this. It was the series of alliances made in the past century. The term the domino effect comes to mind. Once one country declared war it went down the chain of alliances until there were no countries left in the alliance.


Mumbling

  • Administrator
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 8942
    • View Profile
The start of World War 1 was indeed the domino effect that f22 mentions. The reason of this domino effect was the murder on Franz Ferdinant from Austria and the high built tensions between the other allied countries. Austria declared war on Serbia, which led to an allied country of Serbia to declare war on Austria etc. etc. (I have to admit I forgot the order in which the countries followed, but I'm certain someone on here knows ;))

In other words, Germany was in one of these alliances, but definitely not the sole cause for this war to start.


Kor

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 30087
    • View Profile
Likely the one who started it wasn't Germany but the guy who shot Franz Ferdinan, if that his what his name was.   Though something would have sparked WW1 sooner or later I'd guess.  I wonder how the guy felt that it was him who started the first world war, I doubt he cared.


Mirumoto_Kenjiro

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4137
    • View Profile
The assassination itself was just another piece in the domino effect towards the war.  Before that, there was the arms race between the superpowers of Europe, many of these superpowers were empires with many colonies, these superpowers have influences over lesser nations in Europe, there were earlier conflicts that have not been settled, and many countries were wanting to use the opportunity of war to gain greater influence and territory.  And afterwards, Austria-Hungary & Germany gave Serbia a lopsided ultimatum or face war, with intent to provoke war.  Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany declared war on Russia, France and Britain declared war on Germany, and that's how World War 1 started.

Anything that goes wrong truly takes a menagerie of factors to start it, not just one.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: Mumbling,Sep 9 2012 on  01:47 AM
The start of World War 1 was indeed the domino effect that f22 mentions. The reason of this domino effect was the murder on Franz Ferdinant from Austria and the high built tensions between the other allied countries. Austria declared war on Serbia, which led to an allied country of Serbia to declare war on Austria etc. etc. (I have to admit I forgot the order in which the countries followed, but I'm certain someone on here knows ;))

In other words, Germany was in one of these alliances, but definitely not the sole cause for this war to start.
The number of entries into the war is this(major participants)

Austria
Serbia
Germany
Russia
France
Britain
Italy
America


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Unlike in case of WW2 the outbreak of WW1 cannot be blamed on one nation only. After the war the treaty of Versailles ascribed the guilt to Germany only (to form the legal basis for many of the reparations) in article 231:
Quote
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
This article created a lot of bitterness in Germany at the time. In fact I notice that whenever the subject of WW1 is brought up around here these days many people will point out defensively that it was not Germany's fault only. With the horrible crimes committed by Germans in WW2 there seems to be a strong sense of guarding against being solely blamed for WW1 too.
It is quite likely that WW1 could have been prevented if only there had been some real political will to stop that war. This will however was barely existent in the nations of Europe in 1914, the much the more as the expectation everywhere was for it to be a splendid little war which would be over by Christmas, solve the political troubles of prewar Europe and which would of course be won by the own party. Realism doesn't ever play a major role when it comes to mobilizing a country for war :unsure:
Quote
I do not admire any German governments before the current one,
but I do know that Germany was, in a way, tricked into war.
However, to say that Germany was tricked into the war (suggesting for it to be entirely against the will of people in Germany) would ascribe a bit too much innocense to Germany.
Kaiser Wilhelm I. (same as probably all rulers in Europe at the time) didn't want something of the scale of WW1 to errupt, but same as all other rulers he did not do what was in his power to prevent the situation from escalating. He was a person with a lot to compensate for (his crippled arm and his mother's contempt for him because of this deformation had a devastating effect on his psyche) and he compensated mainly with a display of military fetishism.
One of the German contributions to almost ensure the escalation of the conflict was the so called "blanque check" to Austria-Hungary after the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. Rather than calming the rough waters Germany pretty much promised Austria-Hungary any kind of assistance (including military assistance) in any kind of procedure against Serbia. This likely contributed to Austria-Hungary making demands against Serbia which would have come down to seriously cutting (if not ending) Serbia's national independence. With the guarantee of German assistance Austria-Hungary was quite ready to accuse and "punish" Serbia as a state rather than allowing for objective investigations of an assassination that was not in any way conducted, planned or supported by the Serbian government. Serbia's turning to the mighty Russian ally was a natural reaction.
Another dark spot on the record of Germany's role in the outbreak of WW1 is the invasion of neutral Belgium (which was the ultimate casus belli for Great Britain). Belgium was the "thoroughfare" to France in the "Schliefen-Plan", the German strategy for an attack on France with a strong right (northern) wing. Belgium's neutrality and its refusal to grant Germany military access to their territory was just ignored. Some people claim that France would have done the same if given more time, but even if we assume this to be right, there is no denying that Germany was the one to actually do it and invade a neutral country.
Many young people in Germany at the time were very much in favor of the war. Having been told countless of times about the "heroics" of their fathers and grandfathers in the war of 1870/71 there was a great eagerness of the young generation at the outbreak of the war to take the own turn in being "heroic" now. Nobody of course was thinking of rat infested, muddy, trenches and being permanently shelled at the time.

There were motivations for the war in other countries which hampered the political will that could have prevented it. In France there was a degree of revanchism for the war of 1870/71 (in which Germany had dictated a harsh peace), Russia was the first country to actually mobilize its troops, in Great Britain their was the sense of being threatened by Germany's naval build-up. None of the major powers went "perfectly innocently" into this war which each of them, with a little more good-will and diplomatic efforts, might have prevented. Germany was not solely responsible for it, but it was very far from being reluctantly dragged into the war. There was but only a single representative in the Reichstag (the German congress) who voted against the mobilization in 1914. His name was Karl Liebknecht.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: Malte279,Sep 9 2012 on  05:23 AM
Unlike in case of WW2 the outbreak of WW1 cannot be blamed on one nation only. After the war the treaty of Versailles ascribed the guilt to Germany only (to form the legal basis for many of the reparations) in article 231:
Quote
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
This article created a lot of bitterness in Germany at the time. In fact I notice that whenever the subject of WW1 is brought up around here these days many people will point out defensively that it was not Germany's fault only. With the horrible crimes committed by Germans in WW2 there seems to be a strong sense of guarding against being solely blamed for WW1 too.
It is quite likely that WW1 could have been prevented if only there had been some real political will to stop that war. This will however was barely existent in the nations of Europe in 1914, the much the more as the expectation everywhere was for it to be a splendid little war which would be over by Christmas, solve the political troubles of prewar Europe and which would of course be won by the own party. Realism doesn't ever play a major role when it comes to mobilizing a country for war :unsure:
Quote
I do not admire any German governments before the current one,
but I do know that Germany was, in a way, tricked into war.
However, to say that Germany was tricked into the war (suggesting for it to be entirely against the will of people in Germany) would ascribe a bit too much innocense to Germany.
Kaiser Wilhelm I. (same as probably all rulers in Europe at the time) didn't want something of the scale of WW1 to errupt, but same as all other rulers he did not do what was in his power to prevent the situation from escalating. He was a person with a lot to compensate for (his crippled arm and his mother's contempt for him because of this deformation had a devastating effect on his psyche) and he compensated mainly with a display of military fetishism.
One of the German contributions to almost ensure the escalation of the conflict was the so called "blanque check" to Austria-Hungary after the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. Rather than calming the rough waters Germany pretty much promised Austria-Hungary any kind of assistance (including military assistance) in any kind of procedure against Serbia. This likely contributed to Austria-Hungary making demands against Serbia which would have come down to seriously cutting (if not ending) Serbia's national independence. With the guarantee of German assistance Austria-Hungary was quite ready to accuse and "punish" Serbia as a state rather than allowing for objective investigations of an assassination that was not in any way conducted, planned or supported by the Serbian government. Serbia's turning to the mighty Russian ally was a natural reaction.
Another dark spot on the record of Germany's role in the outbreak of WW1 is the invasion of neutral Belgium (which was the ultimate casus belli for Great Britain). Belgium was the "thoroughfare" to France in the "Schliefen-Plan", the German strategy for an attack on France with a strong right (northern) wing. Belgium's neutrality and its refusal to grant Germany military access to their territory was just ignored. Some people claim that France would have done the same if given more time, but even if we assume this to be right, there is no denying that Germany was the one to actually do it and invade a neutral country.
Many young people in Germany at the time were very much in favor of the war. Having been told countless of times about the "heroics" of their fathers and grandfathers in the war of 1870/71 there was a great eagerness of the young generation at the outbreak of the war to take the own turn in being "heroic" now. Nobody of course was thinking of rat infested, muddy, trenches and being permanently shelled at the time.

There were motivations for the war in other countries which hampered the political will that could have prevented it. In France there was a degree of revanchism for the war of 1870/71 (in which Germany had dictated a harsh peace), Russia was the first country to actually mobilize its troops, in Great Britain their was the sense of being threatened by Germany's naval build-up. None of the major powers went "perfectly innocently" into this war which each of them, with a little more good-will and diplomatic efforts, might have prevented. Germany was not solely responsible for it, but it was very far from being reluctantly dragged into the war. There was but only a single representative in the Reichstag (the German congress) who voted against the mobilization in 1914. His name was Karl Liebknecht.
You're right Malte, the 1st World War was never any one nation's fault, but an individuals, the serb who shot Franz Ferdidand. If he had not been killed then perhaps it may be avoided for a few years, but then it could happen for very different reasons, i.e, of France attacking Germany to avenge the Franco-Prussian war in 1870. Then, though, would England or Russia have a good reason to go to war simply because their ally did, probably not. Then, World War I may have just been a war between France and Germany, though Germany would almost definetly win, as they did survive a a war on two fronts. I know Germany wasn't tricked persay, but really, if an enemy of yours is mobilizing near you, wouldn't you probably fight the war to defend yourself? About the blank-Cheque, that I think was only insurance because of the Austro-German alliance formed in 1879. Your right about the revanchism of France and the support for the war in many young Germans, but of course, no nation was innocent. The country that in my eyes did the most in making the war a much larger one, was Russia, as her mobilization provoked Germany to step in, then France.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
On a funny note, but having to do with this, is that when many people on both sides expect they will easily win in a war always seems to turn out as a long war.


Belmont2500

  • Yet another wordsmith
  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2524
    • View Profile
Quote from: Chomper98,Sep 9 2012 on  10:28 AM
On a funny note, but having to do with this, is that when many people on both sides expect they will easily win in a war always seems to turn out as a long war.
World War II is probably the biggest example of that.
 

 


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41625
    • View Profile
as others have said "guilt' for ww1 was not due to one country as was clearly the case in second worl;d war. Princips assassination of the archduke was the lighting of a powderkes but that keg had been primed by the building and tightening of alliances, any single event would lead to a chain reaction, as one country would declare war and others would then jump in to honor the pacts they had signed. WW1 was mostly a european affair, while there was some activity in the Pacific it was nothing compared to the second world war. as for the US President Wilson  based hid 1916 campaign on " He kept Us out of war" Indeed, had Wilson lost to his opponent Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes., US very wel could have been drawn in a bit earlier. in fact wilson was so concerned about losding during uncertain times that he drew up a contifgency plan
 that would see him appoint Hughes to secretary of State and then both he and the Vice President would resign and Hughes would immediately assuime the Presuidency. as it turns out wilson won relection, but by only 2% of the popular vote. It remains the closest re-election margin of victory in the populsar vote, Bushs 2004 marginof 2.5% is the next closest in history.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Mumbling

  • Administrator
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 8942
    • View Profile
Quote from: Belmont2500,Sep 10 2012 on  02:28 AM
Quote from: Chomper98,Sep 9 2012 on  10:28 AM
On a funny note, but having to do with this, is that when many people on both sides expect they will easily win in a war always seems to turn out as a long war.
World War II is probably the biggest example of that.
Or the Vietnam war.


aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato)

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 8266
  • Rations
    • View Profile
    • aabicus.com
I thought everyone blamed Gavrilo Princep for the Great War.


jansenov

  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
^That was just the casus belli, but the real causes run much deeper. The war would have started at one point or another.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I don't think there is any indication that Gavrilo Princep had anything along the lines of WW1 in mind when he murdered Franz Ferdinand and his wife. Since the following chain of events could have been interrupted with a little bit of common sense and goodwill I do not see one or a few vicious evildoers getting WW1 started through one particular act, but rather the indifference / lack of will to stop a war on the collective rulers of Europe and moreso the lack of will to stop it once it was on its way and it had become evident that it wouldn't be a short affair sorting out any problems.