How Europe Went to War in 1914

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.

A bit simplistic, but here goes:
- France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
- Russia: Getting more influence in the Balkan and get free passage to the Mediterranean
- UK: Setting the balance of power in Europe favorable for them, stem the German economical threat.
- Austria-Hungary: Maintain their superpower status, keeping grip on the Balkan and deny the Russians expansion of influence in the Balkan
- Germany: Becoming an imperial power and trying to compete with the UK. Keeping the Elzas. Edit: survival: war before Russia becomes too strong.
- Italia: trying to get parts of Austria-Hungary territory.
- Serbia: trying to get a pan-slavic country on the Balkan, in which Serbia would be the main power.

I did not mention the already known alliances, but tried to find the deeper, 'personal' motives per country to strive for war at that time. I think I got the main culprits here, but if I forgot any, please say so.
Please shoot at it if you want to. I don't claim this the truth, only my believes and conclusions I made. I also don't believe it is complete in any way :)

Parsifal, sorry for not including violating Belgian neutrality. I know it was a legitimate reason for the UK, but like DonL I don't believe this to be the main reason for them.
 
Last edited:
That's a pretty good breakdown of events, Marcel.

Actually, had Germany not engaged France (either through Belgium or not), it looks pretty clear that WWI was going to erupt from the Balkan region no matter what. Austria and Russia aside, the skirmishing already going on prior to the 1914 outbreak of war was already pushing tensions to the breaking point. The Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania were already involved in the First and Second Balkan war (October 1912 - May 1913 and June 1913 - August 1913, respectively) so WWI's fuse was already lit...
 
Marcel said:
I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.

A bit simplistic, but here goes:
- France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
- Russia: Getting more influence in the Balkan and get free passage to the Mediterranean
- UK: Setting the balance of power in Europe favorable for them, stem the German economical threat.
- Austria-Hungary: Maintain their superpower status, keeping grip on the Balkan and deny the Russians expansion of influence in the Balkan
- Germany: Becoming an imperial power and trying to compete with the UK. Keeping the Elzas.
- Italia: trying to get parts of Austria-Hungary territory.
- Serbia: trying to get a pan-slavic country on the Balkan, in which Serbia would be the main power.

I did not mention the already known alliances, but tried to find the deeper, 'personal' motives per country to strive for war at that time. I think I got the main culprits here, but if I forgot any, please say so.
Click to expand...
Reasonable overview, but for Germany I would add the nagging fear within the German military high command that Russia was becoming militarily stronger and that soon Germany would be unable to win any two front war, which lead to the view, when the situation started escalating, that 'now' would be better than 'later'.
 
redcoat said:
Reasonable overview, but for Germany I would add the nagging fear within the German military high command that Russia was becoming militarily stronger and that soon Germany would be unable to win any two front war, which lead to the view, when the situation started escalating, that 'now' would be better than 'later'.
Click to expand...
True, I agree that should be added. That fear was a big motive.
 
Last edited:
I want to add, that in general the german high command overestimated the Russians so the point is valid.

But this nagging and excessive overestimation of the Russians came from one man.

Helmuth von Moltke the Younger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he was mainly chief of the General Staff, because Wilhelm II wanted his "own von Moltke".
He was far far away to be at eye level with this von Moltke, his Uncle:

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sp please don't mix this two, that's very different persons and personalitys.
 
DonL said:
I want to add, that in general the german high command overestimated the Russians so the point is valid.

But this nagging and excessive overestimation of the Russians came from one man.

Helmuth von Moltke the Younger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he was mainly chief of the General Staff, because Wilhelm II wanted his "own von Moltke".
He was far far away to be at eye level with this von Moltke, his Uncle:

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sp please don't mix this two, that's very different persons and personalitys.
Click to expand...
Actually I think the germans were right to think so. The 'nagging' sounds a bit insulting, but I think the fear of the germans was well founded. It would have been much more difficult to beat the Russians a few years later. Unfortunately for them they did not anticipate the trenchware in the west. On the other hand, who did?
 
Last edited:
DonL said:
After some research in my private documents I have found the original report of the german 8. Army

"Meldung AoK 8 (heute 4 Uhr a.m. 2. August 1914) Bahnzerstörungsversuch und Vormarsch zwei Schwadronen Kosaken auf Johannisburg. Dadurch tatsächlicher Kriegszustand."

Report of the 8. Army (today 4.00 a.m. 2. August 1914) Trying do destroy railways and two squadrons Cossacks on the rise to Johannisburg. Through this now actual state of war

An other report was from the General Staff:
"Nach Meldung AoK 8 (heute 4 Uhr p.m. 1. August 1914) Bahnzerstörungsversuch und Vormarsch zwei Schwadronen Kosaken auf Johannisburg. Dadurch tatsächlicher Kriegszustand."

After the report of the 8. Army (today 4.00 p.m. 1. August 1914) Trying do destroy railways and two squadrons Cossacks on the rise to Johannisburg. Through this now actual state of war

Here was some controversy, if the General Staff has manipulated the original report of the AoK 8 about twelve hours or if the AoK did report a wrong time.
The attack to Johannisburg is from KTB and primary sources and also confirmed.

Johannisburg at East Prussia!
Click to expand...
It seems to me far more likely that the General Staff manipulated the report, they had very good political and propaganda reasons to do so.


ps: Thanks for posting the info
 
One of the problems with any documentation, even (or especially) official documents is that people lie, and they lie in writing as much (or more) than in speaking. This is (probably) especially true of documents that governments, particularly non-democratic governments, deign to release to the public. Of course, government officials also lie to other government officials, either directly or by deliberate omission of information that doesn't support an action that one group of officials deem desirable.

This is, of course, a big problem with historical research: nothing is entirely reliable.
 
swampyankee said:
One of the problems with any documentation, even (or especially) official documents is that people lie, and they lie in writing as much (or more) than in speaking. This is (probably) especially true of documents that governments, particularly non-democratic governments, deign to release to the public. Of course, government officials also lie to other government officials, either directly or by deliberate omission of information that doesn't support an action that one group of officials deem desirable.

This is, of course, a big problem with historical research: nothing is entirely reliable.
Click to expand...

In general I would agree, but this sentence:
particularly non-democratic governments
Click to expand...

I don't think non-democratic governments are special to this, which we can see at the very actual issue about the NSA, the NSA lie to every issue they are confronted!
And to mention this, at this thread as off-topic, the atmosphere against the USA in Germany, wasn't as any time as bad as now.
The exxagerated surveillance in Germany and the surveillance of the cell phone of chancelor Merkel was very clear one step too much.
The atmosphere here in Germany is more worst as to the time of George W. Bush, and I have thought this isn't possible.
 
i think marcel has pretty much nailed the underlying reasons for the war. There is still that very delicate and potentially explosive issue of "who started it". Im a traditionalist when it comes to that issue. I think it gets down to two culprits, and I cant make up my mind. I think it was either Austria or Serbia, or probably both.

Wioth regard to Tsarist Russia, it was a nation with great potential, but deep seated social fissures, that held it back in every sense. Until that was addressed, the russians had no hope really. They had a far greater risk of internal revolution over external conquest. The Russian leadership was however very dismissive of the aspirations of their lower classes, and virtually no significant middle class. The failure of the Russians against the Japanese should have opened peoples eyes as to the well hidden weaknesses within russian capability. It was a misjudgement the European military establishments had been making for quite a while. When the Americans invaded Mexico in 1840, most European observers predicted a lay down Mexican victory. They failed to appreciate that Mexico basic raw materials, their manpower, suffered from such deep seated corruption and social schisms, , made worse by the grinding poverty and lack of education in their enlisted ranks, as to render the mexican army that fought in the Veracuz campaign basically impotent. In the First World War, the armies of Russia, Italy, Turkey and to an extent Austria, suffered similar problems. The french had a faulty ultra offensive doctrine, but there was nothing really wrong with their fighting material. The manpower of Imperial Germany and Britain and the Commonwealth did quite well, though the boorish leadership of the british was a big let down.

I would claim that the best troops of the war were the Canadians, the Australians and the new Zealanders. The Germans produced excellent manpower, and coupled it with a thoroughly modern doctrine from 1916 (Von Hutiers tactcs), but these were eventually matched, then bettered by the ANZACS and Canadians. It took the Commonwealth a long time to work out the best "modern" tactics and techniques to break the stalemate , it has to be said, but Monahs and Curries attention to detail, emphasis on all arms and close teamwork are the methods still used to this day to break fixed positions and destroy static lines. .
 
"....it has to be said, but Monahs and Curries attention to detail, emphasis on all arms and close teamwork are the methods still used to this day to break fixed positions and destroy static lines."

Agreed. Well said.
 
parsifal said:
I can type 100wpm but I dont claim that stuff is mine...its called cut and paste. I didnt reference the stuff, because it does have some bits of my own as well, plus I lost the source material
Click to expand...

I have been guessing so, parsifal.
You are a great researcher and writer.
It's cool.
 
I think the rise of the German navy was a huge worry to thier Lordships.

One could say the British had to stop that. Cant have a new imperial superpower with a powerful navy. That job was taken.
 
Parsifal, to me there is no question who started the war. It was Austria-Hungary when they fired upon the Serbian capital. Those were the first shots in the war.

I have no opinion as to who had the 'best troops'. I'm not really sure what would define that. I think overall the military leadership sucked big time during the war in all involved armies. Many incomprehensible or naive strategies, leading to millions of dead soldiers while gaining nothing. I don't believe the British were alone in this.

As for the troops themselves. One can only feel sorry for what they had to endure and admire the spirit of those who did. Last week I read 'all is quiet on the western front' (The german version 'Im Westen nicht Neues') again. Makes quite an impression and makes one wonder why the Germans were so eager to start another war again 21 years later.
 
Last edited:
yulzari said:
I don't know who started it but do know my Grandfather was sent off to France with the BEF in 1914 and came back in 1919.
Click to expand...
My Grandfather went over with the U.S. Army cavalry in 1917, made it almost to the end before having having his horse shot out from under him during a battle, losing most of his foot in the process.

I wish I knew more about the details, but not much was ever said about his experiences (he passed away shortly before I was born)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Lucky13
How Europe Went to War in 1914.....
Replies
1
Views
609
nuuumannn
nuuumannn
Lucky13
WWI In The Alps, How Bad Was It?
Replies
13
Views
790
Capt. Vick
Capt. Vick
Dronescapes
Eddie Rickenbacker: From Race Car Driver To Flying Ace [VIDEO]
Replies
0
Views
442
Dronescapes
Dronescapes
Lucky13
The 1919 German Fleet Scuttle in Scapa Flow....
Replies
0
Views
429
Lucky13
Lucky13
fubar57
B.C. battalion soldier ID'd in France 105 years after First World War
Replies
3
Views
460
Wurger
Wurger
Back