thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Germany didn't start it, but they were responisble for most of it. There probably would have been some conflict regardless, but the Kaiser was bent on war with France, and his demands show that.
Why is it said that Germany started WW1?
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
Verbose
Deity
My take on this is that German responsibility is limited to having made some disastrously misguided political power calculations. So did everyone involved, but Germany made the greatest errors of judgement and were driving the process.
On a general level the kind of power-politics all the major powers played at the time was at fault - you rattled your sabre, cocked your gun, puffed yourself up to look really fierce and hoped the other guy would back down. Britain and France did it all the time (Fashoda etc.)
It was a kind of political chicken-race on constant repeat, and sooner or later someone was going to call the bluff and say 'To heck with this, let's have a war!' Everyone expected a big showdown between the great powers anyway, and had been for some time by 1914.
In essence Germany had already played that kind of game before, scaring the Russians to back down over the Balkans. They thought they could get away with it again and pressed the Austrians to go ahead and make war. (The Austrians wanted a little war with Serbia, but Germany leaned on them to ignore the Russian threats.)
Both the German and Austrian diplomats were absolutely dismayed when this time the whole scam backfired badly.
And then millions died for four years while the Entente mobilised public opinion in a very nasty media campaign against Germany. All those dead couldn't have been sacrificed for nothing, so German 'badness' (militarism, authoritarianism, 'brutality', lack of 'civilisation' etc.) became a standard explanation for why the war was fought.
In the end Germany got harsh terms and had to accept sole responsibility for the war there was a kind of circular argument in it: German responsibility was part of the terms, and the proof of it was the harshness of these. Mostly it was driven by French fears and the misguided idea that the treaty could somehow forcibly and permanently declaw Germany. (It was a repeat of the German terms from 1871 as well, which didn't work any better.)
On a general level the kind of power-politics all the major powers played at the time was at fault - you rattled your sabre, cocked your gun, puffed yourself up to look really fierce and hoped the other guy would back down. Britain and France did it all the time (Fashoda etc.)
It was a kind of political chicken-race on constant repeat, and sooner or later someone was going to call the bluff and say 'To heck with this, let's have a war!' Everyone expected a big showdown between the great powers anyway, and had been for some time by 1914.
In essence Germany had already played that kind of game before, scaring the Russians to back down over the Balkans. They thought they could get away with it again and pressed the Austrians to go ahead and make war. (The Austrians wanted a little war with Serbia, but Germany leaned on them to ignore the Russian threats.)
Both the German and Austrian diplomats were absolutely dismayed when this time the whole scam backfired badly.
And then millions died for four years while the Entente mobilised public opinion in a very nasty media campaign against Germany. All those dead couldn't have been sacrificed for nothing, so German 'badness' (militarism, authoritarianism, 'brutality', lack of 'civilisation' etc.) became a standard explanation for why the war was fought.
In the end Germany got harsh terms and had to accept sole responsibility for the war there was a kind of circular argument in it: German responsibility was part of the terms, and the proof of it was the harshness of these. Mostly it was driven by French fears and the misguided idea that the treaty could somehow forcibly and permanently declaw Germany. (It was a repeat of the German terms from 1871 as well, which didn't work any better.)
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
At first Germany didn´t start the war nor was Yougoslavia existing but Serbia, a state under strong influence by the Black Hand, a terror organization indeed.
We should go at first to the situation of 1914:
1. Serbia and Austria
Austria was a dying empire. There were too many cultures. However hope was there with a crown prince of liberal formate. He could have modernized the empire. That means also he was the one to be the foe nr. 1 for the Serbian nationalists. Serbia dreamt a nationalistic dream of a Great Serbia, which only recently reemergerged by Milosevic and Co. In Serbia the Black Hand had very strong support that even the government was infiltrated and the Serbian PM could only send vague messages to warn the Austrians from the assassination without fearing for his life. When the child was fallen into the well, a phrase used in Germany, Austria´s ultimatum was accepted- without the question for investigating in Serbia. This would have lead to the fact that Serbia was indeed responsible at least to a certain point for the assassination.
2. Russia
Russia was a power in decline like Austria: Too many problems, too few real allies. Revolutions and assassinations were no exceptions. When the last ally on the Balcan was in danger endangering also the Russian dream of a united Slavian empire under Russian control, Russia did everything to help the Serbs, even if they were far away from combat readiness. Otherwise the problems would have been much more. Nevertheless it is surprising that the Russian files concerning this phase are still secret, a hint that they could also have played a role in the assassination.
3. France
France was anxious to get his revenge for the lost war and the (so seen) humiliation of the treaty of Frankfurt in 1871. It was clear that they would help their ally Russia with all means. Even the British could not move them back to the way of a diplomatic solution. Also they were in a way sympethizing with the Serbs.
4. Belgium
Belgium lost its neutrality in the moment they gave the French a free way to Belgium but denying the same for the Germans. That was a de facto declaration of war on Germany, at least the giving up of neutrality. This action led to the British decalration of war on Germany
5. Britain and Germany
Surprisingly both nations were the only ones which really tried to avoid a war. But both failed and were finally cought in their alliances. Both nations were in 1914 very close to an agreement about colonies and fleets. When the news of the assassination of the Archduke came to the Kaiser he was just meeting the British ambassador on his yacht in Norway. Without one of these powers no war would have occured. However both were kept in their alliances. Germany did retake the so called Nibelungen- oath too late, where not xplicit enough that they would go for war. So while both were trying to calm down the situation on a diplomatic way, it was in vain. It is indeed a tragedy for both nations. If they would have kept their neutrality, war would not have happened. Austria however misused the German alliance starting a war the German government did not want. Misusing the blind faith the Germans gave directly after the assassination by going too far to return forcing Germany going for war. Britain otoh was not successful in calming down French and Russians who goaded each other into war.
The European nations slipped into a war. But by far the German and British do have the least guilt. Their only guilt was staying in their alliances instead of making it clear that going for war was no option for them. The Austrians would then have calmed down and I doubt the French would have gone for war against Austria without England. And without British and French help the Russians would never have started a war seeing the problems.
No Germany was not starting the war.
Adler
P.S. This is only a "short" summary. I wrote more in Varykalkas thread.
We should go at first to the situation of 1914:
1. Serbia and Austria
Austria was a dying empire. There were too many cultures. However hope was there with a crown prince of liberal formate. He could have modernized the empire. That means also he was the one to be the foe nr. 1 for the Serbian nationalists. Serbia dreamt a nationalistic dream of a Great Serbia, which only recently reemergerged by Milosevic and Co. In Serbia the Black Hand had very strong support that even the government was infiltrated and the Serbian PM could only send vague messages to warn the Austrians from the assassination without fearing for his life. When the child was fallen into the well, a phrase used in Germany, Austria´s ultimatum was accepted- without the question for investigating in Serbia. This would have lead to the fact that Serbia was indeed responsible at least to a certain point for the assassination.
2. Russia
Russia was a power in decline like Austria: Too many problems, too few real allies. Revolutions and assassinations were no exceptions. When the last ally on the Balcan was in danger endangering also the Russian dream of a united Slavian empire under Russian control, Russia did everything to help the Serbs, even if they were far away from combat readiness. Otherwise the problems would have been much more. Nevertheless it is surprising that the Russian files concerning this phase are still secret, a hint that they could also have played a role in the assassination.
3. France
France was anxious to get his revenge for the lost war and the (so seen) humiliation of the treaty of Frankfurt in 1871. It was clear that they would help their ally Russia with all means. Even the British could not move them back to the way of a diplomatic solution. Also they were in a way sympethizing with the Serbs.
4. Belgium
Belgium lost its neutrality in the moment they gave the French a free way to Belgium but denying the same for the Germans. That was a de facto declaration of war on Germany, at least the giving up of neutrality. This action led to the British decalration of war on Germany
5. Britain and Germany
Surprisingly both nations were the only ones which really tried to avoid a war. But both failed and were finally cought in their alliances. Both nations were in 1914 very close to an agreement about colonies and fleets. When the news of the assassination of the Archduke came to the Kaiser he was just meeting the British ambassador on his yacht in Norway. Without one of these powers no war would have occured. However both were kept in their alliances. Germany did retake the so called Nibelungen- oath too late, where not xplicit enough that they would go for war. So while both were trying to calm down the situation on a diplomatic way, it was in vain. It is indeed a tragedy for both nations. If they would have kept their neutrality, war would not have happened. Austria however misused the German alliance starting a war the German government did not want. Misusing the blind faith the Germans gave directly after the assassination by going too far to return forcing Germany going for war. Britain otoh was not successful in calming down French and Russians who goaded each other into war.
The European nations slipped into a war. But by far the German and British do have the least guilt. Their only guilt was staying in their alliances instead of making it clear that going for war was no option for them. The Austrians would then have calmed down and I doubt the French would have gone for war against Austria without England. And without British and French help the Russians would never have started a war seeing the problems.
No Germany was not starting the war.
Adler
P.S. This is only a "short" summary. I wrote more in Varykalkas thread.
Panda
Metal head
DBear said:
Winner's justice. The side that looses is blamed for everything and gets shafted. It has been like that ever since there have been wars. Just look at Rome vs Carthage for a classic example.
XIII said:Vrylakas wrote a very good (and verbose) article on it.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423
I would recommend that everyone read this article. It's quite long, and occasionally goes off on tangents, but Vrylakas does describe how the assassination of an Austrian archduke by a Serbian nationalist caused Germany, Russia, France and Britain to go to war.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I think each one should (re-) read this thread before posting here this would help avoiding discussing old topics.
Adler
Adler
Jorge
Yo mismo
REDY said:Yugoslavia was not rogue state
I was kiding. But I can imagine Austria using that argument for going to war (like Bush with Iraq).
Twonky
King
Adler, I´m afraid I have to disagree with your positive judgement on Germany.
The probably most important action that initiated the inevitable and irreversable course of action leading to WorldWar was in my opinon the "card blanche", given to Austria by Germany. It was stated that Germany would back Austria, no matter how they would deal with the situation in Serbia. Only with having a reliable ally in Germany, Austria was able to make those offending demands on Serbia.
IMO, it was forseable for Germany how the mechanism of alliances would take Europe to war from this point on.
Of course, this does not put the blame solely on Germany. Lust for war was a disease spread throughout all european countries in those days of nationalism. But Germany was not forced to stand this close by his austrian ally and by doing so, they took their part in contributing to the start of a major war. Had they tried to calm the situation in Serbia instead of fueling it, the WorldWar might have been avoided - at least for the time beeing.
The probably most important action that initiated the inevitable and irreversable course of action leading to WorldWar was in my opinon the "card blanche", given to Austria by Germany. It was stated that Germany would back Austria, no matter how they would deal with the situation in Serbia. Only with having a reliable ally in Germany, Austria was able to make those offending demands on Serbia.
IMO, it was forseable for Germany how the mechanism of alliances would take Europe to war from this point on.
Of course, this does not put the blame solely on Germany. Lust for war was a disease spread throughout all european countries in those days of nationalism. But Germany was not forced to stand this close by his austrian ally and by doing so, they took their part in contributing to the start of a major war. Had they tried to calm the situation in Serbia instead of fueling it, the WorldWar might have been avoided - at least for the time beeing.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
At first we have to see the situation similar to the one of 9/11: There was a terroristical state attacking a major power. At first, in which the card Blanche was given, whole Europe was shocked. In this situation the Germans wanted only to help the Austrians and wanted to give a sign to the terrorists that Germany wanted to help the Austrians to catch te ones responsible for that crime. It was by far not forseeable since the other powers were at first also on Austrian´s side. When it was forseeable, Germany removed the card blanche- too late. Also Germany tried to calm down the situation. This was also meant by the card blanche. However the Austrians misused this.
A word to Serbia: I said it was a terroristical state indirectly at least. That is not completely true. It was not the Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban but nevertheless the Serbian government was full of Black Hand sympathisants and even members. The Serbian MP was fearing for his person so he could only make vague warnings, too vague to see the danger. So indeed members of the government did support actively and passively the assassination. All in all Serbia was a state in which terrorists had very much influence on the government.
Adler
A word to Serbia: I said it was a terroristical state indirectly at least. That is not completely true. It was not the Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban but nevertheless the Serbian government was full of Black Hand sympathisants and even members. The Serbian MP was fearing for his person so he could only make vague warnings, too vague to see the danger. So indeed members of the government did support actively and passively the assassination. All in all Serbia was a state in which terrorists had very much influence on the government.
Adler
Panzerking
Defender of the Realm
REDY said:
I agree that Germany had an interest in war prior to WWI. Don't forget that the arms race (specifically in naval strength) had already poisoned Anglo-German relations. Political purposes almost always drive and govern arms-races and Germany was no exception.
Twonky
King
Adler, it is true that the german political leadership in the person of Bethmann Hollweg did try to appease the situation, even until the mobilization of Russia.
The military leadership otoh was urging for fast mobilization, in Germany as well as towards their counterparts in Austria. One reason for that was, that they shared the wide-spread opinon, that a major european war was inevitable, the other being that the Schlieffen-plan was based on quick progress in the west to free resources for the campaign versus Russia. So the military leaders were - other than the government - actually working towards a sooner beginning of war.
The military leadership otoh was urging for fast mobilization, in Germany as well as towards their counterparts in Austria. One reason for that was, that they shared the wide-spread opinon, that a major european war was inevitable, the other being that the Schlieffen-plan was based on quick progress in the west to free resources for the campaign versus Russia. So the military leaders were - other than the government - actually working towards a sooner beginning of war.
Jorge
Yo mismo
Twonky said:
Well, the same can be said about Russia and the other allies. They were not forced to declare war on Austria to help Serbia.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Twonky, it was indeed a major error to declare war on France. Like Bismarck did it in 1870 the French should have made the (legal) first shot. However the German- British relations were in 1914 the best since Bismarck. An agreement was still possible and even propable. The balance of power would have been new made but stronger than before. A reason for some Russians, Serbs and French to go for war? Nevertheless the arms race as is more invention than it was a true race. Yes Germany built a fleet, but they did never produce more ships than the British and even Tirpitz was keen to come to an agreement with Britain. Remember the fact that Germany was inbetween France and Russia and also needed the way to the ocean. So they did everything to avoid the situations of 1848, 1864 and 1870/71 when strong enemy sea forces were blockading German coasts. So indeed it had to have a strong navy capable to win against both fleets. As long as Wilhelm´s beloved grandma lived, Victoria was no problem as she knew the German problems. Her son nevertheless was a much bigger problem. Nevertheless an understanding in 1914 was very near.
Indeed some in the general staff did want to go for war in 1914 but that was not only in Germany but everywhere. Also the so called Schlieffen plan was indeed the only plan Germany had. And here it is the only error Germany made in the west: They should have let the French to declare war. If then French troops would have crossed the Belgish border an outstanding casus belli would have been given for Germany. Now the British would not have had a reason to declare war. Instead not the German fleet could have blockaded the French coasts. And with that problems and without British help the French would have been beaten.
Adler
Indeed some in the general staff did want to go for war in 1914 but that was not only in Germany but everywhere. Also the so called Schlieffen plan was indeed the only plan Germany had. And here it is the only error Germany made in the west: They should have let the French to declare war. If then French troops would have crossed the Belgish border an outstanding casus belli would have been given for Germany. Now the British would not have had a reason to declare war. Instead not the German fleet could have blockaded the French coasts. And with that problems and without British help the French would have been beaten.
Adler
When the British sent a note to both Berlin and Paris asking each country to observe Belgian neutrality, the French response was to withdraw 10 km from the Belgian border. The French knew they'd lose British support if they invaded Belgium first. Bethmann-Hollweg dismissed Belgian neutrality as "a scrap of paper."Adler17 said:
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Adler17 said:
I disagree on several counts:
1) Britain may not have had the same excuse to declare war if France had struck first, but Britain would still have a reason to enter the war on the side of the French. Britain did not want a hegemon in continental Europe; the power that Germany would gain by defeating France would be too great. If Britain was willing to go to war to prevent Russia from taking Constantinople, which by all indications it was, it should have likewise been willing to go to war to prevent Germany from taking yet more of France.
Britain might not have entered immediately, but I am willing to bet that if France struck first, even if it struck through Belgium, Britain would have gotten involved one way or the other.
2) Germany's best chance of victory came through striking via Belgium. Germany was at a natural disadvantage because of the two-front situation; a protacted war on both fronts would likely result in failure. Germany could not have ended the war quickly in the West except by taking Paris. And how do you take Paris? You have to go through Belgium. It's an axiom of European war. I say that only half jokingly.
Germany's big mistake, in my opinion, was defending against the idiotic French offensive on the Franco-German border. They should have let those troops penetrate deep into Germany, so that they could not be recalled to defend the Marne.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Also, I would argue that as long as Germany violated Belgium's neutrality, they should have also violated the Netherland's neutrality.
Germany's consistent problem during the war was that they went too far, but not far enough. For instance, by violating Belgium's neutrality, they assured early British entry; but if they had gone only a bit farther and violated the Netherlands too, they might have extracted much more strategic gain. After all, the British were going to get involved either way, why not maximize your gain?
The same can be said for submarine warfare and getting the Americans involved, though there I would actually argue that they shouldn't have gone at all.
Germany's consistent problem during the war was that they went too far, but not far enough. For instance, by violating Belgium's neutrality, they assured early British entry; but if they had gone only a bit farther and violated the Netherlands too, they might have extracted much more strategic gain. After all, the British were going to get involved either way, why not maximize your gain?
The same can be said for submarine warfare and getting the Americans involved, though there I would actually argue that they shouldn't have gone at all.
Nobody
Gangster
Yugolavia was not any type of state at the time.
About the victoria and her son thing, did the british monarchy still have any power at the time? i thought by then it was the same as now.
Similar threads
