Origins of The First World War and ramifications

[parsifal]

ywah agreed. as far as the continental powers were concerned, it was simply a case of each power protecting its own sphere of influence, with the events in Serbia threatening the delicate balance of power.

The experiences of pre-W@WI, where there was no forum for international discussions, to air grievances in my opinion led directly to the formation of the League. The League as a concept might have worked, except that the hoorors of the war also led to the radicalisatin of European politics for a number of countries....and that is one of the reasons for the road to the 2nd war.,

 

[renrich]

Some historians have postulated that the entry of the US, into the war in 1917 was a mixed blessing, to say the least. Before that entry, both sides had sustained terrible casualties and there were ongoing efforts by both sides to end the war. Without the US entry, which promised to tilt the scales, what might have been the outcome?

 

[parsifal]

Dunno Ren, but i kinda agree with Pershing. He did not want to accept anything less than unconditional surrender. Makes one wonder if this might have avoided the need to go bac and do it all again twenty years later......

 

[BombTaxi]

Without US intervention, it is quite possible that the Michael Offensive could have succeeded, ending the war in a German victory. The collapse of the Eastern Front gave Germany a huge manpower reserve with which to smash the Allied armies which had spent themselves during 1917 in ultimately futile attacks. A German victory, of course, opens up a whole vista of possibilities, not least a solid, German-speaking bloc in Central and parts of Eastern Europe, and Hindenburg as a kind of latter-day Bismarck, becoming an even bigger political power than he did historically and ensuring that Prussian militarism remained the guiding principle of German rule.

I think you would also get the Cold War starting 30 years early. While Germany would still be incontestably the greatest land power in the world, the RN still existed at war's end, and I do not believe the British would accept any peace terms dismantling it, unless a Silesian regiment was camped outside Buckingham Palace. So the British would either fight to annihilation, or much more likely a settlement would be reached leaving the Second Reich master of Continental Europe, with France and Belgium snuffed out as independent countries, and Britain retaining it's Empire and most of it's sea power. At least here an uneasy balance might be kept for a few decades. But then, the British may well be the ones to develop a strong right-wing in politics and seek their revenge on Germany sometime in the 1940s...

 

[timshatz]

I think confusing the way it was fought with why it was fought is happening. While the magazine rifle, machine gun and quick firing artillery piece had an enormous amount to do with how it was fought, they really weren't causes. More actors in the play.

But I agree with the Dreadnaught being a major reason why Germany/England went at it. The Kaiser really screwed up when he started building a navy that really couldn't compete with Britian's Fleet. Tirpitz's idea of a fleet half the size of Royal Navy's really did nothing more than put two countries that were relatively friendly too each other on a collision course. But the Kaiser was a bit of a nut anyway.

Think someone got it part of the way right when they mentioned that once mobilization started, the war was inevitable. Germany knew it couldn't take both France and Russia at the same time, so it had to go on the offensive. While Russia could partially mobilize and march around in the vastness of Russia for a long time, neither France nor Germany had that option. It was a "go/no go" situation with Mobilization meaning "Go". Russia didn't quite get that distinction.

But those points are how the war started, not so much why. To do that, you need a lot more space than what we have here. Tuchman's "Guns of August" is a good book. But I don't think it is the best. It is better than "Europe's Last Summer" (which is a favorite of mine, deals with the same time period as "Guns of August" but I think Tuchman is better).

Amazon.com: Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? (9780375725753): David Fromkin: Books

The best book I've ever read on the origins of WW1 is one called "Dreadnaught". Something of a nod to the British/German rivalry that sprung up around their respective Navies. The writer is a guy named Robert Massie and is one of those unsung heroes of this history. He is very, very good.

Amazon.com: Dreadnought (9780345375568): Robert K. Massie: Books

If you have only one book to read about the origins of WW1, this is the one. Covers right up to the start of the war. The second volume, "Castles of Steel" covers the time after the start and is equally as good.

Amazon.com: Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea (9780345408785): Robert K. Massie: Books

 

[BombTaxi]

I've got the Massie volumes and they are brilliant, Castles of Steel in particular is very well-thumbed. Guns of August is on my 'to-buy' list, but I will get to my end before I get to the end of that list

 

[timshatz]

I've got the Massie volumes and they are brilliant, Castles of Steel in particular is very well-thumbed. Guns of August is on my 'to-buy' list, but I will get to my end before I get to the end of that list

Guns of August on the Bucket List! That's a guy who wants to know what goes where and why. Most people want to go Nepal and find the secret of life or some such crap. You've got it refined to reading the "Guns of August". Smart man. Cheaper option and you might find out something useful.

Something I do when it comes to books I want to read is get them used from Amazon. Usually can get them for less than $5. Have a ton of books like that. For a while in the Summer, I had 2-3 coming in a week.

Cheap and effective.

Love Massie's work. Definitely underated as a Historian.

 

[davebender]

A-H declared war on Serbia and attacked. Since Germany had an alliance with A-H, she was drawn into that war. Russia had an alliance with Serbia so she joined on the side of Serbia. France had an alliance with Russia so she was drawn in. Great Britain had no alliance with any of the combatants but she had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.

That's the History Channel version of events but it greatly distorts what actually happened.

11 June 1903.
Serbian Army Captain Dimitrijevic leads a military coup which kills Serbian King Alexander. He installs a new Serbian Government that is more or less under his control.

9 May 1911.
Colonel Dimitrijevic forms the "Black Hand" terrorist organization. Funding, training and weapons are provided by Serbia.

From 1911 onward the Black Hand conducted a series of terrorist attacks against Austria-Hungary including an attempt to kill KuK Franz Joseph during 1911.

28 June 1914.
The Black Hand succeed in killing Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne.

8 July 1914.
German Chancellor Hollweg expresses concern that Russia would support Serbia in the current diplomatic crisis.

21 July 1914.
German fears were well founded. On this date both France and Russia declare their support for Serbia.

25 July 1914.
Serbia declares a general mobilization rather then submit to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum for punishment of the murderers.

26 July 1914.
Russia orders a partial mobilization vs Austria-Hungary.

27 July 1914.
France begins making preparations for mobilization.

28 July 1914.
Austria-Hungary mobilizes vs Serbia and declares war.

29 July 1914.
British Government orders the army to prepare for mobilization.

30 July 1914.
France mobilizes 5 army corps (i.e. an entire field army) on the German border.

30 July 1914.
Russia orders a complete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
Austria-Hungary orders a complete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
Belgium orders a compete mobilization.

31 July 1914.
German army ordered to prepare for mobilization.

1 Aug 1914.
France orders a complete mobilization.
Germany orders a complete mobilization.

 

[Marcel]

Davebender, the run-up to WWi started much earlier:

A few points. It's nowhere near complete as it even if I knew everything it would take me too long to sum up all facts:

- The Prusian-French war in 1870. (revenge for the French) In my believe the most important one.
- Congress in Berlin 1878. Russia had won against the Turks, but England and Austria didn't like the resulting Russian influence in the Balkan. Russia lost most of their gain in that conference. (Russia not happy)
- French wanted more colonies in Northern Africa, especially Morocco, started talking in secret to the British, Italians and Spain, but didn't open negotiations with the Germans who had great interests in that country.
- France and Britain started military cooperation, aimed at a big war against Germany.
- 1911, France sends troops to Morocco, without telling the Germans (Britain was informed. Germany sends a cruiser to Tangier. They ask compensation for leaving Morocco to the French.
- German economical and colonial expansion, threatening Britain as the biggest colonial country in the world. In 1912 the German economical growth was twice as big as the British. (Britain not happy!) Germans needed sources for that, but Britain and France prevented that happening.
- the last point resulted in a more aggressive German colony-politics, bringing them in conflict with both France and Britain.
- Germany making secret agreements with Austria against ally Russia. Not very smart....
- Secret French-Russian convention in 1894. Russia wanted an open route to the Mediterranean (Dardanelles). They decided for a big war against Germany, estimated in 1917.
- 1901 King Edward VII came in power in the UK. He didn't like Germany very much.
- in 1905, Edward Grey became Minister of Foreign Affairs in Britain, also no friend of Germany. Started secret talks with the French to help them with a war against Germany. (there goes the statement that England 'only' wanted to help Belgium in their neutrality).
- The weapon race at sea, starting around 1900 between Germany and Britain.
- Russia support Serbia (Pan Serbian empire) in order to get more influence in the Balkan, countering Austria-Hungaria.
- the German support for Austria in that same matter.
- Support of the French and British for the Russians. In this matter.
- a shot in Sarajevo in 1914.....


It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. This is of course the propaganda of the Entente, victors of the war and able to write history. In reality the situations is not so clear. IMHO The French and the Russians were most guilty of the War. They deliberately steered towards a clash with Germany from 1904, both with their own reasons. I'm not saying Germany was not guilty, but to blame them for everything is in my eyes unfair. An unbiased observer would say that both sides had as much guild.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Interesting post Marcel. I tend to hold the same views as you wrote there. I believe that that the truth lies somewhere within your post. I believe that the guilt should be shared by all sides for this war. Of course I believe the "reparations" were too high.

 

[davebender]

All colonial disputes between Germany and Britain were settled in 1890 with the Treaty of Zanzibar.

It was France that was constantly butting heads with Britain during the 1890s in places like Sudan and Malaysia. Not to mention the French conquests of Dahomey and Madagascar.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. "

Marching into Belgium in 1914 at the tip of bayonets isn't "aggression" in your world Marcel?

You make fine points in explaining the colonial back story - all of which I agree with - especially France. But you and I both know that if a group of people stand around urging each other to shoot first - and someone does - that person still bears full responsibility for "acting" - for shooting first. And that's Germany's story. The old preemptive strike that we see again and again with both the Germans and the Japanese. That is war-like behavior in my Canadian books, .

MM

 

[davebender]

preemptive strike that we see again and again with both the Germans and the Japanese

1914 Germany was the last major European nation to order their army to prepare for mobilization. That doesn't sound like a preemptive strike to me.

1914 Japan didn't mobilize until after Britain asked them to, offering a slice of Chinese territory as compensation. That isn't a preemptive strike either. It's a business deal initiated by Britain.

 

[Marcel]

"... It is usually said that Germany was the aggressor in WWI. "

Marching into Belgium in 1914 at the tip of bayonets isn't "aggression" in your world Marcel?

You make fine points in explaining the colonial back story - all of which I agree with - especially France. But you and I both know that if a group of people stand around urging each other to shoot first - and someone does - that person still bears full responsibility for "acting" - for shooting first. And that's Germany's story. The old preemptive strike that we see again and again with both the Germans and the Japanese. That is war-like behavior in my Canadian books, .

MM

Of course it's aggression, but that doesn't mean they're the only one guilty. Looking only at who struck first is way too simplistic too look at historical events. A bunch of countries were deliberately steering towards war. France and Russia for instance. France because they wanted to reclaim the Elzas, Russia because they wanted access to the Mediterranean. It were Russia and France who stirred up the unrest in the Balkan, very well knowing that because of all the alliances, Germany would eventually become at war with them, which was precisely what they wanted. So the aggression started much earlier then only that attack on Belgium. Having said that, I would say that Germany was not free of the blame. And yes, they did the first move in the believe that attack was the best defence.
I still say that Versailles was unfair, claiming that Germany was the only aggressor in this war. France got the war they wanted so badly and got more then they could handle.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... I still say that Versailles was unfair "

Fair isn't the point. Versailles was ineffective - it created a framework for half-baked countries and half-baked ideas and almost guaranteed the 2nd WW. Compare Versailles to the Marshall Plan 25 years later .... THAT was constructive.

".... 1914 Germany was the last major European nation to order their army to prepare for mobilization." So???? . When they mobilized they did so effectively and they were well-equipped and ready for war.

MM

 

[davebender]

When Germany mobilized they did so effectively and they were well-equipped and ready for war.

So did 1914 France and Russia. For that matter so did the USA after 9/11/2001. And Britain after Argentina seized the Falklands. Is there something wrong with being militarily competent during peacetime?

 

[timshatz]

Germany had to go to war in WW1 when it mobilized. Sad to say, but it was in the plan. They couldn't fight and win a two front war (and they didn't). So they had to end one of them quickly. Taking advantage of their central location, they tried to take France out quickly. It was the whole idea, strategically, behind the Von Schlieffen Plan (or memo).

Germany knew the longer the war, the less chance they had to win. Give it a good shot.

As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was a pretty poor document. Didn't give France the security she wanted, didn't punish Germany as much as it pissed them off royally nor did it make the odds of another war smaller. If anything, it increased the chance of a rematch.

Nobody came away from Versailles happy.

 

[Marcel]

"... I still say that Versailles was unfair "

You'll have to quote the whole sentence because you keep missing the point: "I still say that Versailles was unfair, claiming that Germany was the only aggressor in this war." I am claiming that Germany was unrighteously accused of being the sole aggressor in WWI. That's what I'm trying to say.
For the rest I agree with you on Versailles. It was in-effective, not very well considered, and revenge-full. It was THE reason WWII happened 21 years later. The Allies did a much better job in 1945, at least on the western part of Germany.
What I don't agree on is that Germany should have been punished harder. After all, Western Germany wasn't actually punished after WWII. If a country is not punished enough after a war like WWI, then no punishment will be enough. Some-one said the civilians back home in Germany were not affected by the war. This is not true. They had an economical blockade for 4 years. Sure they were affected. And most of their sons never returned.
The western allies did better in 1945 in that they made Germany their friend instead of their enemy. Germany had no reason to start another war.

 

[davebender]

General mobilization (as opposed to partial mobilization against Serbia) caused a huge disruption to the national economy. Consequently it was never practised during peacetime. A major European war became inevitable on 30 July 1914 when Russia ordered general mobilization.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Is there something wrong with being militarily competent during peacetime?"

Nope. Not at all. Better know how to do it quickly and effectively. Etc. Etc. BUT - if you commit FIRST you're "it". If you move first and "win" (Israel 1967) you're a winner. If you commit first and "lose" you're an aggressor. Unfair but simple.

"... You'll have to quote the whole sentence because you keep missing the point".

Do I? My point, Marcel, is that "fair" is irrelevant.

MM