Causes of WW I Poll

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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!)

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.