When a man's Honor meant something ...

[parsifal]

The reasons for WWI are complex, and indeed there is no universally acknowledged theory as to who was responsible.


Determining who was the aggressor nation or alliance is easier. It started with a political assassination, saw the victim (Austria) begin a pogrom on a nation allied to Russia, which then saw mobilzatiuon of Russia, france, germany and finally britain (to protect Belgium). The actual first shots and agressive acts were carried out by Germany and Austria. Therein lies your two nations responsible for the outbreak of the war. Other countries are guilty of posturing, brinkmanship and poor judgement. These two nations were the two clowns that actually started the shooting first (along with, perhaps, the nation of Serbia).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And the others were the clowns who because of thrir actions allowed a political climate to lead to war.

2 sides to the coin...

 

[Lucky13]

Wouldn't be surprised, that grudges were held between countries, since the Napoleonic Wars, there were a few involved then...

United Kingdom
Austria (1800–1805, 1809, 1813–1815)

Hungary (1809)
Russia (1804–1807, 1812–1815)
Prussia (1806–1807, 1812–1815)
Spain (1808–1815)
Portugal (1800–1807, 1809–1815)
Sweden (1804–1809, 1812–1815)
Sicily
Papal States
Regency of Algiers
Qajar dynasty (1807–1812)
Sardinia
Netherlands (1815)
Brunswick
Tuscany
Switzerland
French Kingdom
Hanover
Nassau
Bavaria
Württemberg
Tyrol
Montenegro (1806–1814)

...and:

France
Italy
Grand Duchy of Warsaw
Polish Legions
Holland
Etruria
Principality of Lucca and Piombino
Naples
Swiss Confederation
Confederation of the Rhine
Bonaparte Spain (1808–1813)
Spain (1803–1808.)
Denmark–Norway
Ottoman Empire (1806–1812)
Austria (1809–1813)
Russia (1807–1812)
Prussia (1807–1812)
Sweden (1809–1812)
Qajar dynasty (1804–1807, 1812–1813)

Co-belligerent
United States (War of 1812)

 

[GrauGeist]

The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.

 

[Marcel]

The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.

And France and Russia signed a threaty in which they specificly show that the wanted war with Germany.

 

[Lucky13]

As Wiki put it:

The prime cause of World War I being the hostility between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, it isn't surprising that some of the earliest fighting took place between Serbia and its powerful neighbour to the north: Austria-Hungary. Serbia held out against Austria-Hungary for more than a year before it was conquered in late 1915.
Dalmatia was a strategic region during World War I that both Italy and Serbia intended to seize from Austria-Hungary. Italy entered the war in 1915 upon agreeing to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Italy a substantial portion of Dalmatia.

Allied diplomacy was able to bring Romania into the war in 1916 but this proved disastrous for the Romanians. Shortly after they joined the war, a combined German, Austrian and Bulgarian offensive conquered two-thirds of their country in a rapid campaign which ended in December 1916. However, the Romanian and Russian armies managed to stabilize the front and hold on to Moldavia.

In 1917, Greece entered the war on the Allied side, and in 1918, the multi-national Army of the Orient, based in northern Greece, finally launched an offensive which drove Bulgaria to seek peace, recaptured Serbia and finally halted only at the border of Hungary in November 1918.

Balkans Campaign (World War I) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GrauGeist]

And France and Russia signed a threaty in which they specificly show that the wanted war with Germany.

And that's why the Germans made the pre-emptive strike against France, gambling on Russia being slow to react. The Germans were hoping to be allowed to move through Belgium to strike France where they weren't fortified, like they were along the Franco-German frontier.

Interestingly enough, France asked Belgium to allow them to move thier forces through to attack Germany and Belgium turned them down as well. Germany simply beat them to the punch and while Germany had initial successes against the French, they had to divert thier forces to the east to counter the unexpected Russian offensive. Doing so cost the Germans the manpower they had been counting on to knock the French out early so they could concentrate on the Russians.

Everything went downhill quickly from there...

 

[Readie]

Don't believe the others take this thread very serious, old boy But good post. Agreed.

We can continue a civilised conversation Marcel. After all WW1 and its devastating effects affected people in Europe and the British colonies a lot more than than America.
I must admit that I'm fascinated by the lead up to, the war itself, the massive social change, the end of an era where wars were fought just by professionals and the aftermath.
My lad is taking 'British Wars' as part of his A level history... so. I'm in my element helping him.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.

Thet still aren't to this day.

 

[Readie]

And that's why the Germans made the pre-emptive strike against France, gambling on Russia being slow to react. The Germans were hoping to be allowed to move through Belgium to strike France where they weren't fortified, like they were along the Franco-German frontier.

Interestingly enough, France asked Belgium to allow them to move thier forces through to attack Germany and Belgium turned them down as well. Germany simply beat them to the punch and while Germany had initial successes against the French, they had to divert thier forces to the east to counter the unexpected Russian offensive. Doing so cost the Germans the manpower they had been counting on to knock the French out early so they could concentrate on the Russians.

Everything went downhill quickly from there...

Sounds like WW2 too Dave, No country can fight the Russians and the allies.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"....the others were the clowns who, because of their actions, allowed a political climate to lead to war ...."

Sounds like Syria today. So tell me - who's the ALPHA male here..?

 

[Lucky13]

D*mn! They look uncomfortable...

 

[GrauGeist]

wow...that's a photo for the books...

Past photos of meetings between U.S. presidents and Russian/Soviet leaders at least looked more up-beat...even ones with Khruschev

 

[Marcel]

We can continue a civilised conversation Marcel. After all WW1 and its devastating effects affected people in Europe and the British colonies a lot more than than America.
I must admit that I'm fascinated by the lead up to, the war itself, the massive social change, the end of an era where wars were fought just by professionals and the aftermath.
My lad is taking 'British Wars' as part of his A level history... so. I'm in my element helping him.

I started to develop an interest in the prelude to WW1 the last few years. In the NL they don't pay much attention to that war as we didn't participate. But the path to WW1 is actually much more interesting then that to WW2 and actually serves as a prelude to the latter.

 

[Lucky13]

Had a good series about this on the Discovery, History or National Geographic a while back, about all that went on up to WWI....

 

[michaelmaltby]

When politicians (and countries) start using war to burnish their reputation, when they say one thing and mean another, you know the world is heading for real trouble. For example, this:

 

[Lucky13]

....and weren't they inspired by the Taranto attack by RN?

 

[Readie]

I started to develop an interest in the prelude to WW1 the last few years. In the NL they don't pay much attention to that war as we didn't participate. But the path to WW1 is actually much more interesting then that to WW2 and actually serves as a prelude to the latter.

I agree Marcel. In order to start to understand the lead up to WW1 any national pride has to put aside and the actions of all looked at dispassionately.
Its true to say that Britain was a different country after WW1. One of great changes was women working and having an independent life and income.
I cannot image a situation in 2013 where the British army would tolerate the loss of 20,000 in one day. Nor, would society accept the losses on all sides.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay guys, lets not let this take a dive into modern politics, you know we don't allow that here for a reason...

 

[michaelmaltby]

I guess the "dive" was my post # 7:

"... As we watch the situation in Syria, in the summer of 2013, I have to wonder and fear the possibility that the gassing of his own people by Syrian President Assad could trip an escalating chain reaction of actions and reactions. While the White House seems (officially, at least) unwilling to recognize reality -- the reality nonetheless is that the M.E. is in the midst of a war between Sunni and Shia power brokers: Saudi Arabia and Iran. A 'surgical' strike by any third party is not going to alter that reality. Assad's father brutalized his opponents just as Saddam Hussein did with his. Both keeping the lid on delicate, fragmented pseudo countries that owe their very existence to the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. As indeed does Israel

In 1914 - Russia escalated the tension between Serbia and the Austrian Empire and its allies by playing the Pan Slav Big Brother protector card. In hindsight, if Russia and Germany had both stayed out of the politics and posturing after the assassination, the whole thing could have been contained.
But words provoke words, actions provoke actions ... and so it goes.

This has the makings of conflagration .... in this summer of 2013."

So be it.