How would you change history?

Yes, it could have.

Maybe. The question is whether the European nations would have got over all that nationalism and brinkmanship without a major war which finally smashed the soldierly ideals out of men's heads. Before WW1, everybody was looking forward to war.
 
I think that, whilst World War One, as such, and as it was, could have been avoided, some sort of major conflict would have developed between the two blocs in the following years. That is, after all, why the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just the spark. It had a keg to light.
 
I think that, whilst World War One, as such, and as it was, could have been avoided, some sort of major conflict would have developed between the two blocs in the following years. That is, after all, why the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just the spark. It had a keg to light.

This is what I meant. All of Europe was practically waiting for any good pretext to go to war.

On the other hand, if a right balance of power had been created...
 
I think that stalemate showed that there was a good balance of power. However, this didn't stop the war. It really only may have been stopped if both sides realised that they couldn't win, which seems unlikely, judging by the general attitude of generals stuck in the 19th century.
 
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps if it hadn't started when it did, different Germans might have been in command, and might have made the Schlieffen Plan work, meaning a quicker end to the war. So, there is probably a chance going both ways, as to the scale of the war if it waited.
 
This is what I meant. All of Europe was practically waiting for any good pretext to go to war.
No, they really weren't. Not all of Europe, anyway.
Winner said:
On the other hand, if a right balance of power had been created...
...then somebody would have gone to war to upset the balance of power. Like France's goal after 1815.
 
No, they really weren't. Not all of Europe, anyway.

So what do you say, that jingoistic nationalism wasn't one of the root causes of WW1?

...then somebody would have gone to war to upset the balance of power. Like France's goal after 1815.

Meh, no. Wars are a result of unbalances - when the system reflects old balance of power but one of the states come to believe that this is no longer tolerable and that it deserves better, that it has grown more powerful but the system refuses to reflect that, an event happens that redistributes the power and creates a new balance.

So, the best way how to avoid war is to maintain balance of power. At least that's what the realists believe in...
 
So what do you say, that jingoistic nationalism wasn't one of the root causes of WW1?

I wouldn't have thought so. Perhaps you could argue Germany and AH did, but Germany had already proved their might previously. Of course, it was a cause in the Balkans, but not really in any of the major powers, I would have thought. That's not to say it wasn't harnessed once the war started.

Meh, no. Wars are a result of unbalances - when the system reflects old balance of power but one of the states come to believe that this is no longer tolerable and that it deserves better, that it has grown more powerful but the system refuses to reflect that, an event happens that redistributes the power and creates a new balance.

So, the best way how to avoid war is to maintain balance of power. At least that's what the realists believe in...

I would have thought that states are more likely to go to war when they think the balance of power is becoming increasingly in the opposition's favour. Germany, for instance, thought a war in 1914 would be good, because the Entente was just going to get stronger. So, if one of the powers thought that one of the other powers was becoming too powerful, which was bound to happen numerous times without WWI starting when it did, tensions for war would've been even higher, IMO.
 
I wouldn't have thought so. Perhaps you could argue Germany and AH did, but Germany had already proved their might previously. Of course, it was a cause in the Balkans, but not really in any of the major powers, I would have thought. That's not to say it wasn't harnessed once the war started.

Oh please - France was looking for any excuse to go to war and retake Alsace-Lorraine and get payback for Sedan, Russia was all too happy to rattle sabres whenever the question of panslavism was raised, Britain wanted to take Germany down before it could build a large enough navy to threaten its naval superiority etcetera etcetera. Telling me that Germany was the only country with unhealthy levels of jingoistic nationalism is clearly not supportable.

I would have thought that states are more likely to go to war when they think the balance of power is becoming increasingly in the opposition's favour. Germany, for instance, thought a war in 1914 would be good, because the Entente was just going to get stronger.

It also firmly believed that Germany deserved much better than what the system was offering to it. You know, more colonies, bigger navy, it's own place under the sun etc. :) Germany was simply not satisfied with its position - and I can understand why.

So, if one of the powers thought that one of the other powers was becoming too powerful, which was bound to happen numerous times without WWI starting when it did, tensions for war would've been even higher, IMO.

Balance of power doesn't mean that the relative power of certain actors doesn't change. When one country gets too powerful, other countries form alliances against it.

The problem is that countries are not entirely rational actors and they don't always have all the information to make a good decision - sometimes they believe that the enemies are weak when they are not, underestimate them and thus start a devastating wars.

Again, that's what the realists believe in. I guess the EU gave them all a real headache, because that organization defies the basic principles they so cherish.
 
So what do you say, that jingoistic nationalism wasn't one of the root causes of WW1?
That is not what I said. :)
Winner said:
Meh, no. Wars are a result of unbalances - when the system reflects old balance of power but one of the states come to believe that this is no longer tolerable and that it deserves better, that it has grown more powerful but the system refuses to reflect that, an event happens that redistributes the power and creates a new balance.

So, the best way how to avoid war is to maintain balance of power. At least that's what the realists believe in...
The realists - or at least, the position you attribute to them - do not have a very good grasp of the history of diplomatic relations.
Worked out well for the Concert of Europe, eh?
The Concert of Europe never really existed.
I would have thought that states are more likely to go to war when they think the balance of power is becoming increasingly in the opposition's favour. Germany, for instance, thought a war in 1914 would be good, because the Entente was just going to get stronger. So, if one of the powers thought that one of the other powers was becoming too powerful, which was bound to happen numerous times without WWI starting when it did, tensions for war would've been even higher, IMO.
Germany did not initiate a world war. Germany believed the Austro-Serbian war could be localized. It was a combination of their own blunders and of France's policy that turned the war into a global one. If anything, the diplomatic balance was uniquely against Germany in 1914, a constellation that France knew was unlikely to get any more aligned in the French government's favor. Things were very likely to get better for Germany in the long run, not worse.
 
In fairness, the Gernams probably knew that their actions would lead to a big fight because their war plan was to annoy the French, the Russians and the British; and they must have known that picking on anyone in the slavic-ish reigion would have caused trouble with the Russians and thus sprung the Schlieffen Plan - which annoyed everyone.
 
In fairness, the Gernams probably knew that their actions would lead to a big fight because their war plan was to annoy the French, the Russians and the British; and they must have known that picking on anyone in the slavic-ish reigion would have caused trouble with the Russians and thus sprung the Schlieffen Plan - which annoyed everyone.
Their war plan (insofar as one even existed; the development of the von Schlieffen memo has been rather overstated and misapplied) was for use in 1905. The German government incorrectly assumed that its military would be willing and able to mobilize against just Russia during the July Crisis. There was a disconnect between politicians, diplomats, and generals.
 
I am thinking how should be WWI avoided.
What about US active policy? If Entete or Central powers would have clear ally/opponent in USA, maybe it should avoid conflict.
 
Their war plan (insofar as one even existed; the development of the von Schlieffen memo has been rather overstated and misapplied) was for use in 1905. The German government incorrectly assumed that its military would be willing and able to mobilize against just Russia during the July Crisis. There was a disconnect between politicians, diplomats, and generals.

:rolleyes: How unusual...
 
I am thinking how should be WWI avoided.
What about US active policy? If Entete or Central powers would have clear ally/opponent in USA, maybe it should avoid conflict.
The United States was unwilling to project power across the Atlantic Ocean in the summer of 1914. It took a rather impressive blunder on the part of the Germans, rather adept propagandizing on the part of the American press, and herculean efforts by the American political leadership to make World War I even as palatable as it was to the American people (and considering the measures they felt compelled to take against their citizens' civil liberties in the event, it wasn't especially palatable).

No, the fault essentially lay with a series of German miscommunications, miscalculations, military failures, and unwarranted optimism (and a calculated risk; they believed that the loss of a significant part of their only major ally's prestige and power was not going to be worth losing), combined with the Habsburgs' inability to move quickly, the French belief that this was the perfect moment for global war, the Russian government's domestic problems and foreign policy limitations, and the Serbian government's brinkmanship and disregard for its own citizens' lives. Remove any one of those - the easiest to remedy, althistorically, being the Habsburgs' dilatory movement and failure to gauge public opinion well - and the likelihood of war becomes drastically reduced.
Flying Pig said:
:rolleyes: How unusual...
Do you have a substantive comment?
 
Top Bottom