It's can o' worms time!

It's nearly a century now since the end of World War I (84 years, actually) but still the debate rages over what really caused the war. Listed below are a few of the most common theories, though none is universally accepted. Put in yer two [your currency unit here]!

1. Germany - Like the Versailles Treaty claims, it was all due exclusively to an expansionist and militaristic Germany.

2. Germany - All the European states were fairly militaristic but Germany's decision to give Austria-Hungary the carte blanche was the decisive factor in making the world war.

3. Serbia - Its support for terrorist actions precipitated the crisis that led to war, and just like the U.S. and its allies are currently doing in Afghanistan, Austria-Hungary had a right to take military action.

4. Russia - Its decision to support Serbia, effectively giving Belgrade a carte blanche similar to the one Bethman-Hollweg gave to Berchtold, made what was a local regional war (Austria-Hungary against Serbia) into a Continental war.

5. Russia - its fumbling attempts to mobilize its army pushed the Germans into the war.

6. Germany - The Schliefen Plan effectively guaranteed that once Germany mobilized, it must go to war.

7. France & Russia - Their alliance scared Germany into action in July 1914.

8. Britain - Its unnecessary rivalry with Germany since the 1890s over the German naval program presupposed that Britain had some sort of exclusive right to naval supremacy.

9. All the European Powers - After almost exactly a century of relative peace in Europe, the Great Powers had forgotten why their forefathers in 1815 at Vienna had wanted to avoid a Continental-wide war. Militarism was widespread, and new technologies had convinced the nationalists in each government that they each would easily win.

10. A Clash of the Old World with the Modern World - The old, medieval-style empires came up against the modern nation-state, and the war ensued. It was a war of ancient elitist perogatives vs. modern populism.

These are just the most accepted views; there are many more theories ranging from the ideological to the wacky (often the two mix). What do you all think?

I think it's basically a fear of your competitiors that caused the Great War. Germany feared an encirclement by France and Russia; France and Britain feared German expansionism. And so on. Europe was a tinderbox awaiting a spark; with most nations divided into the two opposing blocs.

Had there been more trust betw nations; I think the Great Powers of Europe would still be great powers today, in the traditonal sense of the term.

I voted for all european powers. Over the late 19th century, most nations had been undergoing domestic expansion and gaining overseas colonies. Each nation thought that it was the biggest and baddest country in the world. This new nationalism eliminated any possible negotiation, since the citizens in the beligerent nations wanted to go to war. Britain had so many volunteers that it had to turn some down. The governments of europe also had motives for wanting to go to war. Germany wanted to expand it's influence overseas and challenge Britain's naval superiority. France wanted to avenge its 1871 loss and recover Alsace and Lorraine. Britain wanted to maintain it's position of colonial dominance in Africa and India, as well as remain the most powerfull maritime empire in the world. Austria-Hungary and Russia both wanted to extend their influence in the Balkans. Turkey wanted to modernize it's country with German help, in exchange for going to war with Russia. I don't think that any one country was really responsible for starting the First World War.

I put other just to point out that the underlying new philosophy of the time was Social Darwinism, which was putting countries on collision courses to war (as interpreted by those within the countries)

All of them equally. Imperialism was the main culprit.

Originally posted by Vrylakas

10. A Clash of the Old World with the Modern World - The old, medieval-style empires came up against the modern nation-state, and the war ensued. It was a war of ancient elitist perogatives vs. modern populism.


I couldn't find this in the list !

Or did you mean this with blaming the Capitalists?

It was definately a clash of the old world with itself. The fact that four HUGE monarchies were toppled as a result of the war and replaced with more democratic forms of government should give anyone a clue.
I know not enough of French history, but I suspect strongly the fourth republic was formed after this war.
I know even less of Italian history, but I would not be surprised at all that also there the war led to significant changes in the constitutional position of the monarch.

That would make six powers being changed from old government systems to more modern ones, and even more important to support my claim: All six countries went into a government that was enforced by popular vote, and no action was taken to restore feodalistic forms of government, as was done after the republican conquest of Europe under Napoleon (see 1815), so even the UK realised the old world order was done with.

That would make all seven key players in Europe fundamentaly altered.

I voted for international capitalism.WW1 was a war made by industrials for industrials.Industrials and other bourgeois wanted to earn money and wanted to make workers forget their claims and communism by opposing em to each other.During the war,they earned money and after the war they called for immigrants to fill the gap let by the "lost generation",created and financed far-right,against immigration,economic depression(made by industrials) and for a strong state against social progress.There again a war and here we go again;immigration,the "people don't work enough" argument,less social charges so that the boss don't place factories abroad,a stronger state etc.U get it when i talk about "the dark side" now?

Great comments, everyone!

Cephyn wrote:

I put other just to point out that the underlying new philosophy of the time was Social Darwinism, which was putting countries on collision courses to war (as interpreted by those within the countries).

Yup - there are legions of reasons behind what led Europe (and on its coattails the World) to war in 1914. I've greatly simplified things as polls are a bit limited.

Germanos wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas

10. A Clash of the Old World with the Modern World - The old, medieval-style empires came up against the modern nation-state, and the war ensued. It was a war of ancient elitist perogatives vs. modern populism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't find this in the list !

Or did you mean this with blaming the Capitalists?

I had to be vague in the actual poll. I suppose it would be covered by the "All European Powers" category. You're right though, I probably should have included something more specific to this.

Damien wrote:

I voted for international capitalism.WW1 was a war made by industrials for industrials.Industrials and other bourgeois wanted to earn money and wanted to make workers forget their claims and communism by opposing em to each other.During the war,they earned money and after the war they called for immigrants to fill the gap let by the "lost generation",created and financed far-right,against immigration,economic depression(made by industrials) and for a strong state against social progress.There again a war and here we go again;immigration,the "people don't work enough" argument,less social charges so that the boss don't place factories abroad,a stronger state etc.U get it when i talk about "the dark side" now?

OK Damien, I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm going to play devil's advocate:

If Capitalists were exclusively or even just majoritably to blame, how then would you explain the widespread participation of pre- and partially-industrialized societies with tiny and uninfluenctial industrial elites (i.e., "bourgeiousie")? All of the Balkan states were hyper-nationalistic peasant societies with almost insignificant numbers of either middle class or industrialists. Austria-Hungary itself had a few centers ("islands") of industrial development but they were small and very localized. Most Habsburg subjects lived still in 18th century-level living conditions and power in the Empire still revolved around the old feudal families, not the weak middle class industrialists. Russia was very much the same - which is exactly why Lenin had to change some aspects of Marxism to meet the needs of a pre-industrial society. Italy was also just entering the industrial age. For most of Central and Eastern Europe, the full impact of industrialization came only after World War I in the 20th century. For most of Europe in 1914 (Britain, France and Germany being major exceptions), the industrialists were too small to really have a major impact on national policies.

I voted other because Austria-Hungary was not listed separately. After the assasination of the Archduke many demands were placed upon Serbia. Serbia, who was at best tentatively involved with the Black Hand movement, agreed to all of these demands except for one. The humiliating demand to allow foreign troops on their sovereign territory. Serbia practically bent over backwards to avoid a confrontation, but Austria, and more importantly Count Berchold, wanted the war irregardless of what Sebia was willing to concede. I submit that you can actually trace the war to the Count himself and his ability to manipulate the Dual Kingdoms monarchy, if not the German one as well.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
. For most of Central and Eastern Europe, the full impact of industrialization came only after World War I in the 20th century. For most of Europe in 1914 (Britain, France and Germany being major exceptions), the industrialists were too small to really have a major impact on national policies.
B4 1934,more than 50% of the french people lived in the country.
The problem is that those "major exceptions" as u call em were major powers as well.
Q:But who used to lead those industrial powers?
A:Those who led the economy,the industry that is to say the industrials(Rockfeller in the USA is the best example i think).
Y did the conflict became worldwide whereas it was a conflict in the Balkans?What did France or the UK have to do with it?

I have to agree with majorlee, the crumbling Dual Monarchy is the primary culprit, as Conrad said "Austria must wage war for political reasons", meaning they needed a diversion for their crumbling empire from the various minority groups who desired independance, and they thought a war the best way to do this.

The other powers were caught in a giant "dominos" effect, a century of treaties and allignments that could not be broken, meaning if Austria attacks Serbia, Russia will attack Austris, in which case Germany must attack Russia, in which case France must attack Germany.

Germany's violation of Belgium brings in Britain via another treaty, so we can see that events quickly got out of hand.

Conrad wanted a small war to "punish" Serbia, but instead he triggered a war which brought down the crowned heads of Europe.

Originally posted by Damien
I voted for international capitalism.WW1 was a war made by industrials for industrials.Industrials and other bourgeois wanted to earn money and wanted to make workers forget their claims and communism by opposing em to each other.During the war,they earned money and after the war they called for immigrants to fill the gap let by the "lost generation",created and financed far-right,against immigration,economic depression(made by industrials) and for a strong state against social progress.There again a war and here we go again;immigration,the "people don't work enough" argument,less social charges so that the boss don't place factories abroad,a stronger state etc.U get it when i talk about "the dark side" now?

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't GET it. You have not explained your case: yes, some industrialists benefited from the war, but how exactly does that make them to blame for it?

Did they make the treaties? Did they pass the conscription laws? Did factory owners call up Joffre and say "hey, we want a war?" Was the Chancellor or the Czar or whoever taking calling cards from lobbyists for all of August who were saying, "hey, we need a war, we need our stock markets to collapse, please, just do it for us?"

The bourgeoisie held politics,culture and economy(c Rockfeller).
Industrials triggered the war is what i mean.

Fear was rampant as a factor in allowing the Great War to materialize:

Austria-Hungary feared becoming a second rate power (which it essentialy WAS de facto, although certainly not de jure) and they feared if they did not show up the Serbs and Pan-Slavism, they were going to continue to erode - the ironic thing is WW1 brought about their decline faster than nationalism ever would.) It is true that Count Berchtold LIED to the Archduke when he said the Serbs had already begun to attack across the Danube - they hadn't - and the Archduke WAS satisfied with Serbia accepting all but one of the terms of the Ultimatum - he did not want war but felt he had to now that his country had been 'attacked'.

Russia feared declining as a world power as well. Remember Russia was right up there with England as the #1 world power during most of the 19th Century, but it was being eclipsed by the rapidly industrializing Germans and Russia had lost a war to Japan in 1905 and had been humiliated by Austria-Hungary in the Bosnian Crisis of 1909. Russia felt one more loss of face would be its doom, so it was forced to support Serbia NO MATTER WHAT.

Germany feared a France-Russia alliance and also feared not having the room to expand as a world power - to catch up with England. Ironically, Germany had already surpassed England in Industrial and military might. Germany also CREATED the Russian-France alliance when they refused to renew the reinsurance treaty with Russia in the late 19th Centruy, before then France was the isolated one, not Germany. German ambition and arrogance also eventually scared England into the entente fold. If Germany had not supported Austria-Hungary in 1914, a general war most likely would not have broken out. The problem was Russian mobilizationw as so damn slow they had already begun to mobilize (BUT ONLY AGAINST AUSTRIA-HUNGRY, so they said) but to Germany that was enough for them to declare war on Russia.

France feared the ambition of Germany and had simmered for 40 years after their crushing defeat at Sedan and the loss of Alsace & Lorraine. France was forced to defend Russia from German agression, and they declared war on Germany instead of the other way around. This perfectly fit the GErman's war plans per Von Schlieffen.

England feared German challenge to their global status - once England felt threatened by the German naval build-up, they joined France and Russia (who were their traditional enemies to that point in time!) England had always gotten along well with Germany but Germany was becoming too powerful. The English prime minister was welcoming the role of mediator between the Austrians and Serbs to get things under control (and improve British standing), but once they saw the Germans COMPLETELY disregard Belgian Neutrality, they felt compelled to assist the entente in defeating Germany.

The Great War was going to happen someday, it was inevitable - the particular way it broke out didn't really matter. Europe had a 43 year hiatus of war among the Great Powers - this was unprecedented. Industrial development and modernization had take a considerable leap in that time. Everybody was stunned by the mincer that this war became. People and leaders had forgotten how horrifying war could be and their imaginations were exceeded by the technogical breakthroughs in destruction. I think if the Great War had happened earlier it would not have been as destructive, the bomb just kept getting bigger with each passing year.

In conclusion I blame the rediculously outdated 'Great Power System' for the cause of World War 1.

Austro-Hungary, for making too aggresive ultimatum to Serbia.

I think that there are two kinds of answer for this. There was a historical (social, economic) trend that ended up in a war, and there was a particular chain of events that "pulled the trigger".

I vote for All European Powers, because historically speaking their expansionist behavior led to this war. By 1914 the colonization period was about the end since not much territory left. Until then the major powers could fight in the colonies to avoid a major European war but satisfy their own hunger and their public with successes.
I think Magnus had a quite good post about the fear factor that guided the major powers. This war was obviously inevitable, all powers felt some kind of peak in its power and wanted to act first before the others can.

On the other hand there was a dominoe-factor that started with the Habsburgs after the Sarajevo assassination. And as they pulled the trigger it was unstoppable because of the mobilization plans of the major powers.
A.J.P. Taylor wrote once that blame the railroad schedules, since once the mobilization started it cannot be altered so everybody had only one chance to mobilize.

Good thread by the way! :goodjob:

I voted for the Central Powers. However the full reasons are more complex and shared by other nations, too. Most of it has been touched upon or sumarized in various posts here. :eek:

Great posts everyone!

I'm glad to see that everyone so far has resisted falling into the traditional arguments about poor Europe being dragged into a Balkan war. The Balkans get blamed for a war that really developed in Vienna, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris and London!

But I do want to step back a moment and take a look at the Austrians. Does anyone sympathize with them, especially in light of what has happened to the U.S. on 11. September? The Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a splinter group of the Crna Ruka (Black Hand), a quasi-military terrorist organization bent on creating a Greater Serbia. Crna Ruka was led secretly by an officer in the Serbian Army, Dimitrejevic (known as Apis, "The Bull") and had considerable covert logistical aid from many in the Army and Serbian Intelligence community. Crna Ruka received no official government funding and though the whole Serbian government agreed ultimately with Apis' goals they shied away from his means. Nikola Pasic, the prime minister, knew that even with Russian support (not a guaranteed thing) Serbia was unlikely to come out looking good after a war with Austria-Hungary. Gavrilo Princip, the actual assassin, was an 18 year old Serbian nationalist in the Habsburg province of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an old medieval kingdom whose cities in 1914 were primarily Moslem or Catholic Croat while most of its countryside was Serbian-populated.

He was hired by Crna Ruka to kill Ferdinand not because Ferdinand hated Serbs or represented foreign imperial rule; Crna Ruka killed Ferdinand because he wanted to either federalize the empire or at least create a tri-partite compromise like the dual-monarchy between the Austrians and Hungarians in 1867. Ferdinand wanted to create a Slavic Parliament of sorts that would represent the Empire's Slavic peoples (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ruthenians). Franz Ferdinand represented a threat to Serbian nationalists because he wanted to improve the life of Serbs within the Empire, where they already enjoyed a higher standard of living, better economy, better access to world markets, better security, better education in their own language - perhaps disinclining them to join the nationalists' fantasy Greater Serbia. Ferdinand had married (over strenuous objections from the Habsburg family) a Czech middle class woman (Zofia Chotek) and he because very popular among the Empire's Slavs for his views on equal representation for the nationalities - and consequently extremely unpopular with Hungarians, who wanted to preserve their status within the Empire. In fact, Hungary's press at the time lambasted Ferdinand on a regular basis and immediately after the assassination the rumor-mill in Vienna itself suggested the Hungarians must have hired this Princip to kill him. This was quickly dispelled when Vienna traced Princip back to Belgrade.

NOW, the question I ask (again) is whether Vienna was justified in what it did in 1914? Their 2nd in command, the hier to the throne (equivelant to vice president) was assassinated with the complicity of a foreign state. That foreign government itself was not involved directly in the attack but several members of it had aided and abetted the terrorists. Serbia in 1914 could be compared loosely to Afghanistan in 2002; a weak and lawless central state that officially did not support terror but whose ideology forced it to allow terrorist groups to operate on its soil. The terrorists had penetrated the government and its apparatus at many levels, and could exercise considerable control over state policy. Did Vienna have the right to attack Serbia in retaliation for the assasination? For most of the 20th century the answer has automatically been "No!" in the West, but pershaps in light of recent events we should re-think this? After the assassination Vienna immediately moved towards a war scenario but Budapest dragged its feet because it did not want the Empire to conquer and annex Serbia, effectively adding even more Slavs to the Empire (and thereby diminishing further the Hungarians' populational "pull"). The reason Vienna took so long - a month - to do anything was specifically because the Austrians had to convince and promise the Hungarians that there would be no annexations. This means Serbia proper was not in danger of being destroyed, though the Austrians would likely have installed a pro-Habsburg government in Belgrade, perhaps even overthrowing the Karadordevic dynasty. Even Grey in London is known to have urged the Austrians to move militarily quickly in June so as to head off a crisis by dealing with Serbia before the Great Powers would have any time to react, leaving the fighting to be done at post-war conference tables instead of trenches. Does this mean Hungarian foot-dragging is responsible for the war? (O man, KLazlo is gonna clobber me for that one!)

What should Vienna have done? Was Russia right to automatically support Serbia, despite what its army and parts of its government had been caught doing? Serbia in 1914 was pretty much what we in 2002 would call a terrorist state; did Serbian nationalist aims justify its support for terrorism? If so, then what about Milosevic's revised attempt to achieve the same things in the 1990s? Was the original Austrian plan, of a punitive attack and temporary occupation of Belgrade, the best idea? Is that different from what the West has done in Afghanistan in 2002? How?

I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, but not too much. History is a living thing that needs constant re-assessment and fresh reviews. What does anyone think?

Originally posted by Vrylakas
After the assassination Vienna immediately moved towards a war scenario but Budapest dragged its feet because it did not want the Empire to conquer and annex Serbia, effectively adding even more Slavs to the Empire (and thereby diminishing further the Hungarians' populational "pull"). The reason Vienna took so long - a month - to do anything was specifically because the Austrians had to convince and promise the Hungarians that there would be no annexations. This means Serbia proper was not in danger of being destroyed, though the Austrians would likely have installed a pro-Habsburg government in Belgrade, perhaps even overthrowing the Karadordevic dynasty. Even Grey in London is known to have urged the Austrians to move militarily quickly in June so as to head off a crisis by dealing with Serbia before the Great Powers would have any time to react, leaving the fighting to be done at post-war conference tables instead of trenches. Does this mean Hungarian foot-dragging is responsible for the war? (O man, KLazlo is gonna clobber me for that one!)


Sociologists never clubber, they just add confusing details... ;)
So first of all your comparison is pretty good, I have never thought that way about the Serb problem before WWI. I'm so sad because I left my library in Hungary so I can point out some things.
I didn't hear about this foot-dragging, which obviously doesn't mean that it did not happen. Actually thinking more a bit about it it was clear that the Habsburgs and especially Hungary could experience only worst-case scenarios from WWI, so neither of them wanted it really. The Habsburg Monarchy was not prepared for war, actually if they get another year they wouldn't be prepared either, because history just went over them. Hungary had to face with the following possibilities:

1. Occupation of Serbia, and/or creation of a balkan state within the Monarchy - this is bad because the representation of the balkan interests gets stronger, therefore Hungary looses ground within the monarchy.

2. Small-scale war around the Southern border - this is bad also, because Hungary had a significant slavic minority (Serbs, Croatians, Romanians etc.), who would cause some internal trouble and the battles would have happen by the Hungarian and not the Austrian borders.

3. Large-scale war (WWI) - this is bad also because in this case the Monarchy should face not just Serbia but Russia also and at that time everybody was convinced that once Russia moves nobody stops them. Most Hungarians remembered the 1848-49 revolution, the last actual fighting in Hungary, which was defeated with Russian help, who just outnumbered the Hungarians. Indeed because of geography, Hungarian territories would have served as a buffer zone against the Russians.

So as it was typical several times in history Hungary could only choose from bad and worse scenarios. If I remember correctly what I learned or read this delay was partly because the Monarchy tried to convince Germany to support them in case of a Russian attack on the Monarchy to support Serbia (Russia and Serbia had no common border).

As for the comparison between 1914 and now one difference could be that domestic terrorism doesn't care anybody outside the state, the US probably wouldn't attack the Taliban if there's no 9/11. I don't think that too many significant powers (except the Habsburgs of course) would care about Serbia if they only terrorize themselves.
But it's an interesting question...

Originally posted by Vrylakas
NOW, the question I ask (again) is whether Vienna was justified in what it did in 1914? Their 2nd in command, the hier to the throne (equivelant to vice president) was assassinated with the complicity of a foreign state. That foreign government itself was not involved directly in the attack but several members of it had aided and abetted the terrorists. Serbia in 1914 could be compared loosely to Afghanistan in 2002; a weak and lawless central state that officially did not support terror but whose ideology forced it to allow terrorist groups to operate on its soil. The terrorists had penetrated the government and its apparatus at many levels, and could exercise considerable control over state policy. Did Vienna have the right to attack Serbia in retaliation for the assasination? For most of the 20th century the answer has automatically been "No!" in the West, but pershaps in light of recent events we should re-think this?

A very good question Vrylakas! :)

For me the answer is "No". Has been and still is. But the comparision is valid, without any doubt. Austria was in today's rethoric, a "victim of state sponsored terrorism", at least they must have had that impression at the time. But my answer is still no because I don't think it gave Austria the right to do it then, and it doesn't give the West (in particular America) the right to do it now. Countries, and especially the people in them, shouldn't be punished for terrorist actions, even if their government should be involved.
To answer the original question:
I think it's a mixture of most of the reasons you gave as options for the poll. All powerful nations had their own (nationalist/imperialist) reasons for a war. The Industrialists (Capitalists) in the respective countries also had their interest in it. Serbian nationalists triggered the war with the Sarajevo assasinations, although that wasn't a reason it applies to "what caused the war". It's always a good idea to blame Canada (I was told...). Now altogether it was probably impossible to prevent. The big majority of those who had power at that time in Europe and the world wanted a war, and that can hardly be stopped.

I can't absolve Austria simply because Serbia agreed to every one of the Austrian demands except occupation by Austrian forces.

As I said earlier, Conrad wanted war, and he was going to get it.

I can also say I'm not convinced that destroing the old Imperial powers in Europe was a good thing, in light of the success of the EU today, unity seems to be coming, and it's better then the fragmented tiny kingdoms they have littered Europe for centuries.

whoever made this poll wasent too bright. it was Austria Hungary's fault. everyone knowes that.

Russia should have never mobilized its forces. Perhaps Germany wouldn't have gone nuts on France if it didn't. :/

I voted other, in lieu of an "all of the above" option.

I didn't vote for the "all European powers" option because as has been noted elsewhere, there were greater things at work behind the scenes in addition to the political agendas of the states.

Interestingly, "Russian's bumbling mobilization" was mentioned. (Sorry, I've not mastered the quotation thing yet!) Yet in fact Russia maobilized far faster than the German General Staff had assumed, throwing the whole Schlieffen plan timetable out of whack. And one can argue that German fear of the Russian industrialisation which was linked to a vigourous railway-building programme in Poland was partly responsible for Germany's aggressive support of Austria-Hungary, which emboldened the Habsburgs in their demands of the Serbians.

One can also argue that the inflexible plans (particularly of the Germans) acted to widen the war far more than otherwise; von Moltke's refusal to halt the mobilisation process (inability to halt it, really) threw away the last hope to stop the war. And the German automatic widening of the war to include France as soon as war with Russian was inevitable, driven by war plans, ruined the flexibility that a negotiation would have required.

One sees in the immediate pre-war process a parallel to the battlefield problems of the Great War - an immense potential, but without the command and control mechanisms to allow it to function effectively. The rigid mobilisation timetables reflect the rigid battleplans which were the only means for success on the battlefield.

Germany didn't want the war, they gave austria their full backing in hopes that it would intimidate the rest of europe into peace.

if i understand correctly.

It was entirely due to nationalist movements in the balkans in my opinion.

MAIN causes of war.
Militarism- 350% increase in military spending from 1870 to 1914 by major European powers.
Alliances- Triple Entente, etc.
Imperialism- Cough, Bosnia Hertzigovina 1908, cough
Nationalsim- well, thats a given.

Grade 11 social studies for ya.

AofA wrote:

I can't absolve Austria simply because Serbia agreed to every one of the Austrian demands except occupation by Austrian forces.

Belgrade had little choice, with an Austrian Army gathering on its border. Pasic was just buying time for what he hoped would be a massive Russian invasion into Galicia.

I would ask again; was the Serbian government any less deserving of Vienna's wrath in 1914 than Afghanistan's was Washington's in 2001? What should Vienna have done, if not invaded and overthrown what was a terrorist regime hopelessly beyond reform?

As I said earlier, Conrad wanted war, and he was going to get it.

This much is true, that Conrad had been spoiling for a war with Serbia since 1912. The reason though is that Serbian-sponsored terrorist actions throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Banat had been growing exponentially.

I can also say I'm not convinced that destroing the old Imperial powers in Europe was a good thing, in light of the success of the EU today, unity seems to be coming, and it's better then the fragmented tiny kingdoms they have littered Europe for centuries.

Ah - the first cracks in the facade of a rock-solid 20th century belief, that ethno-linguistic nationalism could only be satisfied throught statehood - ein Volk, ein Nation! This myth played a major role in the destruction of the old imperial realms but only in the 1980s and 90s, with most of the bloody 20th century behind them, did a few of the "freed" nations begin to ask aloud whether independence was all it's cracked up to be. Stunted little economies breeding dependence and easy manipulation by outside powers, internicene ethnic strife shattering centuries-old communities, small populations unable to provide for adequate armies (even in the militaristic 1930s) in a very dangerous neighborhood, collapsing living standards, all products of the automatic belief that every single nationality must have a state.

Hitro wrote:

A very good question Vrylakas!

Thanks Hitro! One should never be complacent with history. Always question!

For me the answer is "No". Has been and still is. But the comparision is valid, without any doubt. Austria was in today's rethoric, a "victim of state sponsored terrorism", at least they must have had that impression at the time. But my answer is still no because I don't think it gave Austria the right to do it then, and it doesn't give the West (in particular America) the right to do it now. Countries, and especially the people in them, shouldn't be punished for terrorist actions, even if their government should be involved.

The Habsburgs were a feudal imperial realm that was interested exclusively in preserving itself. After the 1878 Conference of Berlin the Habsburgs gave up expanding into the Balkans (having successfully blocked Russian influence there), instead being content to maintain the status quo. Vienna signed various treaties of alliance or non-aggression with most of the Balkan states in the 1880s and 90s, and pretty much let things rest. In 1914, the Habsburgs hoped to rely on this system of alliances but of course Italy (1915), then Romania (1916) both switched sides.

I would ask you then what Vienna should have done. It wasn't looking to destroy and exterminate the Serbs; it was looking to replace an extremely hostile neighboring government that was sponsoring terrorism on its soil.

Pellaken wrote:

whoever made this poll wasent too bright. it was Austria Hungary's fault. everyone knowes that.

Ah, a typically modest and diplomatic response from Pellaken. Tell me P., why is it "obviously Austria-Hungary's fault"? I am trying to challenge exactly that traditional notion. Please read my post 4 ahead of yours, and tell me what your thoughts are.

NewFangle wrote:

Russia should have never mobilized its forces. Perhaps Germany wouldn't have gone nuts on France if it didn't.

MadScot wrote:

Interestingly, "Russian's bumbling mobilization" was mentioned. (Sorry, I've not mastered the quotation thing yet!) Yet in fact Russia maobilized far faster than the German General Staff had assumed, throwing the whole Schlieffen plan timetable out of whack. And one can argue that German fear of the Russian industrialisation which was linked to a vigourous railway-building programme in Poland was partly responsible for Germany's aggressive support of Austria-Hungary, which emboldened the Habsburgs in their demands of the Serbians.

A few historians have fingered Russia's fumbled mobilization as the cause for the outbreak of war. The Tsar's decision to order a precautionary half-mobilization, then cancel it, then order a full mobilization, was supposedly misinterpreted by the Germans to be aggressive moves when the Russians were just reacting to political events in Austria and trying to kick-start their creaky mobilization plan that required more time than Germany's to achieve full status - and Russia's one major advantage over Germany in 1914 was sheer numbers.

MadScot - excellent points!

SKILORD wrote:

Germany didn't want the war, they gave austria their full backing in hopes that it would intimidate the rest of europe into peace.

Interesting theory, S. In the first week+ of the June-July Crisis, Bethman-Hollweg tried desperately to restrain Vienna and he genuinely tried to organize an international conference to resolve the crisis, much to Conrad's annoyance. However, somewhere in the 2nd week Germany decided that this was a good opportunity for the Final Showdown it had been planning for a decade with Russia and France. There is a point in the July Crisis where Berlin clearly takes over and pushes for war, but I'm wondering about the events that brought Europe to that point where Germany's opportunists could hijack matters. From that point on, the war had nothing to do with Serbian terrorism, it had everything to do with German imperial ambitions and fear of the Russo-French alliance. Could something have been done in those first two weeks though that staved off war?

It was entirely due to nationalist movements in the balkans in my opinion.

D'oh! The Balkans take a hit! Rising nationalism throughout the old creaky empires (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman) was a boiling confrontation but I think the dissolution of these empires in 1918 proved that they alone were not the problem, that nationalism created its own problems (culminating after a nasty couple decades in something we quaintly call "World War II"). Simply said, the nation-states founded on nationalist principals in the interbellum years proved to be even worse with minorities than the old feudal empires had been.

Newfangle wrote:


MAIN causes of war.
Militarism- 350% increase in military spending from 1870 to 1914 by major European powers.
Alliances- Triple Entente, etc.
Imperialism- Cough, Bosnia Hertzigovina 1908, cough
Nationalsim- well, thats a given.

Pretty standard list, NF, and I'm asking if those still stand up to scrutiny. Yes indeed there was a rapid rise in the size of armies around the Continent in the decades leading up to the war, but the various military machines were still very small, almost tiny, by comparison to the armies the 20th century would become accustomed to. The alliance system proved effective in the 1946-89 Cold War in Europe (though it sucked for those of us on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain), but it did keep the Soviets out of Western and most of Central Europe.

Bosnia-Herzegovina was given to Vienna at the Berlin Conference as a protectorate in 1878 (meaning that it was occupied by Austria but technically still belonged to the Porte) and its annexation in 1908 was a mere legal technicality. Bulgaria's unilateral declaration of independence (at the same time, coordinated with Vienna) in 1908 made a bigger sensation across Europe. The Bosnian population at the time was mostly Moslem and Croat in the cities, with Serbs populating much of the rural countryside; the urban (Moslem & Croat) Bosnians tended to be pro-Habsburg while the poor, rural countryside (Serbs) were the ones agitating against Austrian rule. When the Archduke arrived in Sarajevo he was greeted by genuinely warm and enthusiastic crowds. Moments after he shot the Archduke, Princip had to be saved from being pummeled to death by the crowd by nearby gendarmes; there's a famous picture of this. Even among the Bosnian Serbs there was a rift as some prefered life in the empire while others opted for the Serbian state.

Grade 11 social studies for ya.

It's exactly those that I'm challenging. I think the way we look at what is probably the most important and defining conflict of the 20th century needs to be re-evaluated. Our historical approach has been a little too pro-Allied, and that has distorted I think how we understand the motivations of some of the participants.

Great posts all! Thanks everyone and keep it comin'!

I'd say that it isn't the direct fault of any people or ideology, but I'd say that it was the secret alliances between countries.

How about the fact that the Shlieffen Plan existed at all. Invading a neutral country-- yeah, that'll go over well.

Originally posted by newfangle
How about the fact that the Shlieffen Plan existed at all. Invading a neutral country-- yeah, that'll go over well.

Well, I don't see why invading a 'neutral' country should be considered any more heinous. Were the Poles materially better off than the USA, because Hitler had the diplomatic courtesy to declare war on them first, while the Japanese didn't get their timing right for Pearl Harbor? I don't think so :). Declaring war on a 'neutral' makes them non-neutral, anyway, technically.

And the making of war plans is not in and of itself an abhorrent act IMHO. (A rather vindictive aspect of Nuremburg was using the charge "planning offensive war" for some of the Germans. Excuse me if the phraseology is not perfect.). Every nation's general staff makes plans for war in peacetime - they would be criminally negligent were it otherwise.

The problem with the Schlieffen plan (from a political aspect, ignoring the military validity of the plan) was that it rendered German diplomats incapable of any flexibility. Once war was likely with Russia then a first strike on France was the only option they had. Thus eliminating any chance to keep the war to the Balkans or Eastern Europe 'only'.

Incidentally, if it was wrong for the Germans to plan to invade Belgium in the Great War, where does that leave France and Britain? After all, in WW2 the Western Allies' plans called for a forward defence of the French frontier on Belgian territory - regardless of what Belgium had to say about the matter.

(edited because I can't spell!)

Really all nations would be neutral by your defenition untuil war is declared.

MadScot wrote:

problem with the Schlieffen plan (from a political aspect, ignoring the military validity of the plan) was that it rendered German diplomats incapable of any flexibility. Once war was likely with Russia then a first strike on France was the only option they had. Thus eliminating any chance to keep the war to the Balkans or Eastern Europe 'only'.

Another great post MS! As the British historian John Keegan points out, the Schlieffen Plan also had a host of fatal flaws, derived from the fact that Herr Schlieffen based many of its tenets on fantasy. The numbers required for the plan had never been assembled in any army yet, so Schlieffen just assumed the German generals would figure out the logistics as they went along. Also, despite the fact the French played along beautifully as if they were working from the same plan (by attacking Alsace-Lorraine), Schlieffen never explained how Paris itself would be taken. He just left it hanging there in the plan, as if by some point it would just fall into the Germans' hands like ripe fruit. Von Moltke found this out when he reached Paris and had to make a decision that Schlieffen didn't bother imagining or explaining; which flank should the Germans maneuver around to take the city? Or did Schlieffen imagine the German soldiers would hurl themselves at the fortress walls directly? With supply lines at a breaking point von Moltke made his decision and was instantly pounced upon by Gallieni, a retired French general who drove the Germans back, saved Paris, thereby saving France - and guaranteed a long war of attrition. The Schlieffen Plan, and the whole romanticized notion (influenced still by Napoleonic and Clauswitzian verve) that inflexible "lightning" plans could win wars before the enemy knew what was happening set matters up for the longm drawn out and bloody war that World War I became.

Incidentally, if it was wrong for the Germans to plan to invade Belgium in the Great War, where does that leave France and Britain? After all, in WW2 the Western Allies' plans called for a forward defence of the French frontier on Belgian territory - regardless of what Belgium had to say about the matter.

Indeed, one could say the same of Greece. The Allies, pushed to help break the Russian Navy (and supply ships) out of the Black Sea and also hoping to be able to aid Serbia from the south set up a base in the Balkans at Salonika, in Greece. Unfortunately there was the minor inconvenience of the king of Greece being Kaiser Wilhelm's brother-in-law and he wanted to keep Greece strictly neutral. He sacked his pro-Allied prime minister (Venizelos) when the defeated Anglo-French forces arrived from Gallipoli, so the British helped overthrow the king (setting up Venizelos as an alternate government from their camp at Salonika) and eventually bringing him to power. For the time when Venizelos was out of power the Allies still maintained a massive military base that included the entire port of Salonika and southern Greek Macedonia, for about 8 months, without the Greek government's permission. In this way did Greece join the Allied cause in WW I.

Also, in all fairness, one must consider the views and values of the day. There was a tangible difference in the rights of small countries (like Belgium or Greece) and the Great Powers, like Britain or Germany. While it made wonderful propaganda neither side really blinked at the thought of violating a smaller state's interests to pursue their own. This was a major point that both Woodrow Wilson and others have attempted to address in the 20th century through the League of Nations and the United Nations, to level the playing field somewhat. Keep in mind that I derive from a country that has Russian and German 'Highway' written all over it.

(edited because I can't spell!)

You spell better than most, MS -

BTW, today is the 88th anniversary of the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo. I have visited the Habsburg prison fortress (Spielberg in modern Brno, Czech Republic) where Princip was detained afterwards, and where he died of tuberculosis in 1918 and I am glad that bastard spent his last days in such a cold, dank place.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
It's exactly those that I'm challenging. I think the way we look at what is probably the most important and defining conflict of the 20th century needs to be re-evaluated. Our historical approach has been a little too pro-Allied, and that has distorted I think how we understand the motivations of some of the participants.

And that is a very important challenge. History has to be constanly reviewed, which doesn't have to mean that is has to be revised, but there are and will always be falsifications of the real events and the more found out the better.

I personally think quite alot of the view on the period of 1914-1945 as the second Thirty Years War (and yes, I know that it's technically 30,5 years ;) ).
Within that period of time the world order that had slowly grown over centuries was completely destroyed and replaced by a new one. Simplified it means that Europe lost it's hegemonial status in the world, Imperialism and Colonialism were ended.
World War One didn't really end in 1918/19, the so-called peace was doomed to fail. The original Thirty Years War also had long periods without actual war (in the sense of fighting) so I think these periods (who are almost exactly 300 years apart) are very comparable in the impact they had. Some even see the whole period of 1914-1989 as one, which also makes some sense.

Now what does that say about the reasons for WW1?
I think it was inevitable in the sense that the 'old order' was slowly falling apart, new powers grew stronger in the world (most of all the U.S.), new technological and social ideas reshaped almost everything. This 'old order' wasn't made for reforming, it wasn't able to re-adjust itself to the new circumstances, so the tensions had to rise and finally it had to break apart with one or more big bangs. And World War One was the beginning of that.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
As the British historian John Keegan points out, the Schlieffen Plan also had a host of fatal flaws, derived from the fact that Herr Schlieffen based many of its tenets on fantasy. .....
One of my favourite historical writers. Erikson has interesting views on the Eastern front. And I find John Terraine's challenge to the 'accepted' truths of the Western front refreshing, even if he does have a serious case of Haig-hero-worship.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Indeed, one could say the same of Greece.....
Yes, a much better example than WW2 Belgium.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Also, in all fairness, one must consider the views and values of the day. There was a tangible difference in the rights of small countries (like Belgium or Greece) and the Great Powers, like Britain or Germany.
In fact the very term "Great Power" denotes the hierarchy of countries that was tacitly assumed.

Good parallel between early 20th Century Europe and the 30 years war, Vrylakas. One can easily see the continuity through the period. I'm not sure I buy into the 1914-1989 parallel. The post-war conflicts have been ideologically based, as was WW2 one might suggest. But it's hard to see ideology as the basis for the Great War - indeed the countries with the biggest ideological differences were allies - democratic but monarchy Britain, republican France and autocratic Russian. Perhaps rather than one single period of 1914-89, it's two overlapping periods (of say, 1914-45 and 1936(?)-89) with the first being dominated by the conflict over primacy in Europe, and the second phase being the ideological struggle between totalitarian states and democracies.

And, yes, everyone is neutral until in a state of war. Then they become an enemy or an ally. Pedantry, I agree.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
(edited because I can't spell!)
You spell better than most, MS -
[/B]
Well, perhaps "can't type" is more accurate. And with the 'benefit' of a British education and being a native English speaker, I feel that I should be able to engage in a detailed discussion - I am very impressed by those who do so when English is not their native tongue.

I clicked on Serbia, but I realize that many factors came into play to get the war going. I think that if Ferdinand was not assasinated, the war would have still happened eventually in some form, but maybe not World War I as we know it.

So the serbs assasinated Francis Ferdinand, and Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia. Because Germany swore to assist, they went to war, and because Russia was the traditional protecter of Serbia, they went into it againt the Germans and Austria Hungary. France, being Russia's ally in the Triple Entente, went to war, and Britain went to war as well. All of Europe plunged into war in a flash.

I'm watching documentaries on this now from the library, because I have watched enough on World War II, I knew so little about the first World War that I wanted to learn. Over 30 countries were involved in some form, whether fighting in it or having their land used as a battlefield, etc.

-october-

and Britain went to war as well

because they promised to protect somebodies neautrality. Belgiums i think.

Could it be that the Arms races and animosity was caused by a major shift in the power games in Europe caused by the foundig of the second reich. therefor really it was indirectly the germans fault although it wasn't they that wanted or caused it.

Originally posted by newfangle
How about the fact that the Shlieffen Plan existed at all. Invading a neutral country-- yeah, that'll go over well.

America has plans for VIRTUALLY every country on Earth (I doubt they have any for Saba (population 2000).

I bet Canada has a defence policy if the states invades, and it probably goes something like this.

RUN......FOR GOD'S SAKE RUN......LEAVE YOUR MATERIAL POSSESSIONS BEHIND TO APPEASE THEM.....AND FOR CRAP'S SAKES LETS HOPE THE METRIC ROAD SIGNS CONFUSE THEM AND MAKE THEM GET LOST.

This is interesting. I've taken a short laid-back summer course in political history this summer at the University. The course ended today, and guess what one of our exam questions was? Yes, you guessed it, the who's-to-blame for WW1. This is the first time in over a month I've been to civfanatics, and what is the first topic (well almost anyway) that I see?

I wish I had read this before today, since I blamed the Austrians for the war. Well not really, I said that lot's of factors played a part (you all know them by now, the alliance system, the lack of big wars in the past, etc.) and that none of the great powers was completely innocent. But that if you were to grate the "guiltiness" of the great powers, Austria-Hungary would top my list.

You have raised some doubts about this with your thread, which is good. One thing I think should be mentioned when discussing Austria-Hungary's guilt is that the situation was not all that similar to US - Afghanistan in one aspect. Serbia had a very powerful ally in Russia, in fact it was probably more powerful than Austria-Hungary, and that Russia had a quite powerful ally in France. Faced with this, Austria knew they had to get Germany on their side, meaning that if war did break out over the Serbian question, it would be a very major war indeed. Now, the US probably would have thought twice before attacking Afghanistan if they (Afghanistan) had been allied with, say, China. Don't you think? That's my main problem with you comparing the 1914 question of Serbia with the 2002 question of Afghanistan. Austria-Hungary played with very high stakes, willingly risking a war as great (or greater as it turned out) as the Napoleonic wars 100 years ago. All this just because they wanted to punish the ones guilty of assasinating the heir to their throne.

Anyway, great thread Vrylakas, only wish I'd seen it earlier so I'd written a much more interesting exam:)

Originally posted by das
Austro-Hungary, for making too aggresive ultimatum to Serbia.
That's is what set it off. However, it wouldn't be a World War, if it was not for this word MAIN. It stands for Military, Imperialism, Alliances, and Nationalism. This was set by the European powers, which made it a world war. Otherwise, it would not be a world war, just a war.

Originally posted by Lord_Vetinari

You have raised some doubts about this with your thread, which is good. One thing I think should be mentioned when discussing Austria-Hungary's guilt is that the situation was not all that similar to US - Afghanistan in one aspect. Serbia had a very powerful ally in Russia, in fact it was probably more powerful than Austria-Hungary, and that Russia had a quite powerful ally in France. Faced with this, Austria knew they had to get Germany on their side, meaning that if war did break out over the Serbian question, it would be a very major war indeed. Now, the US probably would have thought twice before attacking Afghanistan if they (Afghanistan) had been allied with, say, China. Don't you think? That's my main problem with you comparing the 1914 question of Serbia with the 2002 question of Afghanistan. Austria-Hungary played with very high stakes, willingly risking a war as great (or greater as it turned out) as the Napoleonic wars 100 years ago. All this just because they wanted to punish the ones guilty of assasinating the heir to their throne.

Probably stronger than Austria-Hungary? If it weren't for Germany, the Russians could have gone all the way toe Vienna easily. At the beginning of the war the Austrians were getting the butt-rush from Russia. It isn't a probably, but rather a "most spectacularly greater."

Probably stronger than Austria-Hungary? If it weren't for Germany, the Russians could have gone all the way toe Vienna easily. At the beginning of the war the Austrians were getting the butt-rush from Russia. It isn't a probably, but rather a "most spectacularly greater."

Ok, a lot stronger that Austria-Hungary then. Which only makes it all the more obvious that Austrian leader must have been aware of the very real threat of a great european war, and yet they still acted the way they did. I still think that altough the burden of guilt should be divided between the great powers, Austria is the most guilty.

Originally posted by Lord_Vetinari


Ok, a lot stronger that Austria-Hungary then. Which only makes it all the more obvious that Austrian leader must have been aware of the very real threat of a great european war, and yet they still acted the way they did. I still think that altough the burden of guilt should be divided between the great powers, Austria is the most guilty.

Hahah, there ya go. I just wanted to help reinforce your point.

Lord_Vetinari wrote:

This is interesting. I've taken a short laid-back summer course in political history this summer at the University. The course ended today, and guess what one of our exam questions was? Yes, you guessed it, the who's-to-blame for WW1. This is the first time in over a month I've been to civfanatics, and what is the first topic (well almost anyway) that I see?

D'oh! My wife says I have an amazing uncanny ability to be off with my time...

I wish I had read this before today, since I blamed the Austrians for the war. Well not really, I said that lot's of factors played a part (you all know them by now, the alliance system, the lack of big wars in the past, etc.) and that none of the great powers was completely innocent. But that if you were to grate the "guiltiness" of the great powers, Austria-Hungary would top my list.

You have raised some doubts about this with your thread, which is good. One thing I think should be mentioned when discussing Austria-Hungary's guilt is that the situation was not all that similar to US - Afghanistan in one aspect. Serbia had a very powerful ally in Russia, in fact it was probably more powerful than Austria-Hungary, and that Russia had a quite powerful ally in France. Faced with this, Austria knew they had to get Germany on their side, meaning that if war did break out over the Serbian question, it would be a very major war indeed. Now, the US probably would have thought twice before attacking Afghanistan if they (Afghanistan) had been allied with, say, China. Don't you think? That's my main problem with you comparing the 1914 question of Serbia with the 2002 question of Afghanistan. Austria-Hungary played with very high stakes, willingly risking a war as great (or greater as it turned out) as the Napoleonic wars 100 years ago. All this just because they wanted to punish the ones guilty of assasinating the heir to their throne.

Lord V, you've found a hole in my approach. Vienna was indeed aware of the risks of going to war with Serbia by late July, and yet it did so anyway. Conrad wanted war, and Berchtold seemingly just assumed (hoped?) Germany would take care of the Russian problem. This is quite reckless because the Germans were very aware - to their alarm - that they were on their own in the east against the Russians until Austria defeated Serbia. The Habsburgs simply couldn't field enough of a force against two fronts, so its force in Galicia (Austrian Poland) was merely symbolic. The Germans also hoped to wrap up France first and then turn to Russia, and were initially hoping the Austrians would protect their butts hanging out in the east until they could shift forces there after the victory parade in Paris.

Of course it didn't happen that way. The Germans got bogged down in the West, they failed to take Paris, and the Russians decided for reasons of vanity to attack the Germans in Prussia first instead of hitting the extremely weak Austrian front. In any event the Serbians, to everyone's surprise, repelled the Austrian invasion. For as grim as the war looked for the Western Allies in 1914, it was not-stop disaster for the Central Powers - even including the Tannenberg victory against the Russians in which two Tsarist armies were destroyed but more sprung up behind them.

Anyway, great thread Vrylakas, only wish I'd seen it earlier so I'd written a much more interesting exam.

I think it's still a valid historical topic that is pertinent today in many ways. I was both surprised and gratified to read when the 1962 FRUS finally came out last year that the Kennedy brothers during the Cuban Missile Crisis both consulted Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August about how Europe fumbled into World War I. In the midst of an extremely intense diplomatic and potentially military standoff the President was reading a history of an inadvertant war to try to avoid one himself!

And I try hard not to think about the current President in Washington who wouldbe challenged reading a Harry Potter book...

Thanks for the input Lord V!

Serbia is pro Russia if they did not ask Russia for help WW1 will not occur

Incompetent diplomacy helped grease the wheels of war. Ultimatims were sent, and then the sender went off on holiday! The Kaiser tried to promote peace, and then went yachting. All the monarchs were related. Queen Victoria was everybody's grandma. Thanks for the hemophilia, by the way. If the Russian crown prince hadn't had it history might be different (at least no rasputin).

They didn't have to have a war, at least not then. Eariler thay had had just a bad a causus belli, something about Morroco, I think, about 1908? If they know in 1914, or had thought about it, what they knew in 1918, they wouldn't have done it. But everyone who counted was sure they and their allies could handle the other side.

Think of the US Civil war, both sides thought it would be over in 90 days and they would win. That kind of thinking is hard to overcome.

I'll try to put in my scattered, underinformed ideas marauding as some sort of unified opinion based in fact ;).

It's been a while since I brushed up on the great war, so forgive me if I botch a few facts.

To say that Austria was fully informed on the risks of the war is a bit of a folly; keep in mind that Conrad did not have the kind of details on the Schleiffen plan and had been ensured that the Germans would be there to crush the Russians in Galicia, Silesia, and Prussia. The two main conspirators of the war which I view are Berchtold and Conrad individually, for what one did not know fully about the issue the other had twisted and delivered to the emperor to add for causus belli.

The Austrian military plan (again, forgive me if this is too sketchy) was a fairly simple design, and was relatively intelligent at that, but poorly implemented. Conrad had set up the A Staffel, B ('swing') Staffel, and C staffel. The A Staffel located in Galicia and the C Staffel located just North of Belgrade. The A and B Staffel were approximately the same size, while the C Staffel was somewhat larger. All documents say officially that the German general staff had intentionally kept the Austrians in the dark, knowing that the Habsburgs, as it has been stated, were more interested in self-preservation than anything else.

When it finally came down to war, Conrad had recieved more assurance from the Germans (through Berchtold) that they would be there, and appropriately assigned the B Staffel to move with the C Staffel into Serbia, as opposed to North where they really should have been. As has been evidenced in this war, timetables would doom many careless generals--by the time word came in that the Germans were pouring into France, the B Staffel was already heading South, and new railroad timetables could not be drawn up in the given time to go North with the A Staffel. Instead, about three-fifths of the Austrian army was poised against Bulgaria, while a comparatively feeble number of soldiers stood to defend Galicia.

By the time the Russians came crashing down, an all too inadequate piece of the Austrian army's fate was sealed, and by the time the trains could be turned around to Galicia everything was snowballing so quickly that the casualties would become enormous.

Because Berchtold had pushed for war by misinforming both the Emperor (as when he said shells had been fired from Belgrade), and the main General, Austria miscalculated entirely in the risks involved in the undertaking and, not only that, but had completely blown off where to place their forces.

Austria marched blindly, albeit with purpose, towards war.