Why is it said that Germany started WW1?
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
Kosez
Sitting Wool
As Verbose before me I want to clarify some things about Serbia:
After Balkan wars, Serbia emerged as a capable European kingdom and as all European kingdoms wanted to have all the Serbians under one roof (accordingly to Bismarck's national states). A lot of Serbs lived in Bosnia, which was under Austrian rule, but technically still part of Osman Empire (even Turks at this time didn't seriously consider Bosnia still Turkish).
Austria was preparing to annex Bosnia, so it would officially be part Of Austro-Hungarian Empire. That was fine to Boshniaks and Croatians but not to the Serbs in Bosnia, who wanted to be part of Serbia.
Things were very complicated, because Serbians and Austrians couldn't just divide the country as Serbs lived in northern Bosnia, closer to Austrian empire, and between Serbian kingdom and them lived Boshniaks and Croatians.
So I think both Serbia and Austria wanted the war, but It's reasonably to believe Serbia was afraid of many times bigger Austrian army more than Habsburgs were affraid of Serbia. And because Serbs in Bosnia and in Serbia knew they won't be able to resolve situation by ware, they took some other measures, like Black Hand organization, etc...
Gavrilo Princip is a hero to Bosnian Serbs, they lived under foreign rule for centuries and when time was finally due to reunite with Serbia, there appeared Austria.
After Balkan wars, Serbia emerged as a capable European kingdom and as all European kingdoms wanted to have all the Serbians under one roof (accordingly to Bismarck's national states). A lot of Serbs lived in Bosnia, which was under Austrian rule, but technically still part of Osman Empire (even Turks at this time didn't seriously consider Bosnia still Turkish).
Austria was preparing to annex Bosnia, so it would officially be part Of Austro-Hungarian Empire. That was fine to Boshniaks and Croatians but not to the Serbs in Bosnia, who wanted to be part of Serbia.
Things were very complicated, because Serbians and Austrians couldn't just divide the country as Serbs lived in northern Bosnia, closer to Austrian empire, and between Serbian kingdom and them lived Boshniaks and Croatians.
So I think both Serbia and Austria wanted the war, but It's reasonably to believe Serbia was afraid of many times bigger Austrian army more than Habsburgs were affraid of Serbia. And because Serbs in Bosnia and in Serbia knew they won't be able to resolve situation by ware, they took some other measures, like Black Hand organization, etc...
Gavrilo Princip is a hero to Bosnian Serbs, they lived under foreign rule for centuries and when time was finally due to reunite with Serbia, there appeared Austria.
Because they lost. TBH, its a bit more complicated than that, but boiled down to its essence, that's it.
thenooblet22
King
I don't mind the clear blunt explanation "They lost," but you can't really blame them for causing the most damage/casualties in the war. If they threw more punches than you, does that mean they are to blame for all the fighting?
Someone already said this but: "The winners write the history books."
Someone already said this but: "The winners write the history books."
Verbose
Deity
If "They lost" is the explanation one might as wall say "They didn't lose BADLY enough", i.e. winning the way they did, did nothing to remove the French fear of getting creamed by Germany in a rematch. The harsh conditions were part vindictiveness, part the mistaken hope it would make them safe from Germany.
History doesn't say that. Germany started WW2 and played a big role in WW1. It's often misconceived that they were the big bully of Europe who caused both of them.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
I think I heard someone mention that the Germans had to admit responsibility for the war as part of the peace agreement. They were certainly one of the more belligerent players at the start of the war (look at the demands they threw around after the assassination) but the whole situation was set up in tinderbox fashion and I doubt any of the decision makers really expected it to become a World War.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Vrylakas wrote a very good (and verbose) article on it.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423
I also suggest this as reading for anyone interested in this question.
The important question is, why the devil the assasination of an archduke who wasn't even that popular amongst his empire, by a Balkan extremist who didn't even represent his government, lead to a massive war between all of the major powers?
The answer? There is more to it.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, this extremist was supported by big parts of the Serbian government. And if Condoleeza Rice was shot by an Iranian terrorist helped by the Iranian government...
Adler
Adler
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Adler does make a good point (as is usually the case).
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I don't know, the EU would attack Russia?
I am not saying that it doesn't make sense if you look closer (after all, it DID happen).
Just that a world war involving most major players, based on the whacking of an unpopular royal in a second rate power by an extremist loosely-connected to a fourth-rate power, is a huge leap. And the article that is linked to helps explain this leap.
Serbia hadnt wanted war, they knew that they havent chance. They even accepted majority of (very hard)conditions, but Austra-Hungary wanted their land. I should see there parallel with Iraq, maybe..The war within assanation would start sooner or later, but would start. I read that Serbia lost about 33 procents of population during war, they have my admiration how they defended their land againist superiority.
The main warmongers were France and Germany, but all nations involved had some interests, maybe within Belgium...
The main warmongers were France and Germany, but all nations involved had some interests, maybe within Belgium...
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well, it happened and if I had to play my example further: USA attacks Iran. Iran is helped by Russia and Russia declares war on the US. Therefore EU declares war on Russia. WW3! So it happened in 1914.
But again the question behind was difficult policy. Austria annexed Bosnia. That was against some nationalists in Serbia, who also radicalised. They became terrorists, as Serbia was not strong enough to fight Austria in a war. So the Black Hand organized to kill the Archduke. Who was quite popular, as he was very liberal and thought to someone able to stop the decline of Austria. However killing him should destabilize Austria. If the Russian secret service played also a role in the drama is not sure, as Russia backed up Serbia. Nicholas II. had severe problems because he did not grant an at least constitutional monarchy. He was not willing doing so. Also after the loss of the war with Japan he feared losing the status of a major power if he did not help the Serbs, as he wanted to become the ruler of all Salvs. Germany backedup her last trustworthy ally, Austria, but only to a certain extent. They gave a card blanche but wanted negotiations. That was misused by Austria in the end.
Austria however should have declared war at once and nothing happened (except to Serbia). But here also interior policy played a major role. The whole state was disintegrating. Another minority would have fastened up that. So Austria (in this text I ever mean Austria Hungary), which felt unfair treated in the last big negotiations, made an ultimatum to Serbia. And yes, indeed it was accepted- except the point, that Austrian and neutral policemen should investigate in Serbia. And although this was not as common as today, that was nothing new, as the Serbs once investigated in Austria, too. As big parts of the government were involved, that could not be accepted. So this was denied and Austria declared war. Russia declared war on Austria and Germany had to declare war on Russia.
France was eager for revenge and there a normal dealing with negotaitions were not possible as France wanted the war, too. Britain and Germany had both no interests in a war but were caught in their alliances.
That is a short summary. I also posted this before, so you can read there.
However my example from yesterday tro explain it better:
Russia is backing up Iran to get more power in the deals with resources (Oil, gas). Iran is developing nukes and has some other problems with the west. Then Ahmedinedschad send a killer and he kills Condi. Bush demands an investigation and although most points of the ultimatum are accepted, no US FBI guy is allowed to investigate in Iran. So the US attack Iran. To lose no ally and trustworthiness Russia declares war on the US, who now ask the NATO for help, so that NATO and EU declare war on Russia and Iran.
After that mechanism ww1 started.
Adler
But again the question behind was difficult policy. Austria annexed Bosnia. That was against some nationalists in Serbia, who also radicalised. They became terrorists, as Serbia was not strong enough to fight Austria in a war. So the Black Hand organized to kill the Archduke. Who was quite popular, as he was very liberal and thought to someone able to stop the decline of Austria. However killing him should destabilize Austria. If the Russian secret service played also a role in the drama is not sure, as Russia backed up Serbia. Nicholas II. had severe problems because he did not grant an at least constitutional monarchy. He was not willing doing so. Also after the loss of the war with Japan he feared losing the status of a major power if he did not help the Serbs, as he wanted to become the ruler of all Salvs. Germany backedup her last trustworthy ally, Austria, but only to a certain extent. They gave a card blanche but wanted negotiations. That was misused by Austria in the end.
Austria however should have declared war at once and nothing happened (except to Serbia). But here also interior policy played a major role. The whole state was disintegrating. Another minority would have fastened up that. So Austria (in this text I ever mean Austria Hungary), which felt unfair treated in the last big negotiations, made an ultimatum to Serbia. And yes, indeed it was accepted- except the point, that Austrian and neutral policemen should investigate in Serbia. And although this was not as common as today, that was nothing new, as the Serbs once investigated in Austria, too. As big parts of the government were involved, that could not be accepted. So this was denied and Austria declared war. Russia declared war on Austria and Germany had to declare war on Russia.
France was eager for revenge and there a normal dealing with negotaitions were not possible as France wanted the war, too. Britain and Germany had both no interests in a war but were caught in their alliances.
That is a short summary. I also posted this before, so you can read there.
However my example from yesterday tro explain it better:
Russia is backing up Iran to get more power in the deals with resources (Oil, gas). Iran is developing nukes and has some other problems with the west. Then Ahmedinedschad send a killer and he kills Condi. Bush demands an investigation and although most points of the ultimatum are accepted, no US FBI guy is allowed to investigate in Iran. So the US attack Iran. To lose no ally and trustworthiness Russia declares war on the US, who now ask the NATO for help, so that NATO and EU declare war on Russia and Iran.
After that mechanism ww1 started.
Adler
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The rest of the mid east declare for Russia/ Iran. Pakistan drags India into the eqution, somehow draging China in. Massive civil war in Nigeria spreads across west africa and the conflict in the Horn of Africa explodes. At which point every tin-pot dictator with a grudge realises this is the moment to settle old scores and make a grab for land.
Tboy
Future world ruler
Anyone who has studied WWI would not say that Germany started WWI, rather the whole world system (army buildup, empires, secret alliances e.t.c.).
But the main reasons for this misconception are probably War Guilt Clause 231, anger at Germany after WWII and lack of education about WWI (WWII gets a lot more attention).
But the main reasons for this misconception are probably War Guilt Clause 231, anger at Germany after WWII and lack of education about WWI (WWII gets a lot more attention).
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
@Adler. I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that it doesn't make any sense that WWI started. I am just saying that when most people learn about the war, there is very little attention payed to detail about that first string of events.
On the surface, having a European War start over the assasination of Ferdinand seems like a huge leap. And that is why the article Vrylakas wrote is good reading, because it explains that "leap" in higher level of detail.
On the surface, having a European War start over the assasination of Ferdinand seems like a huge leap. And that is why the article Vrylakas wrote is good reading, because it explains that "leap" in higher level of detail.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Okay, yes I misunderstood you. You're completely right, that this detail is not recognized mostly.
Adler
Adler
