Gelion
Retired Captain
A historical link please tovarich?Commy said:
Why is it said that Germany started WW1?
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
Gelion
Retired Captain
A historical link please tovarich?Commy said:
Dreadnought
Deity
Japanrocks12 said:
Also, (this was before WW1) Britian didn't like Germany's new navy all that much...
Commy
Prince
2 Gellion: I have read about this in a book, not in webGelion said:A historical link please tovarich?
PS What is your nationality?
Dreadnought
Deity
Can you then name the book?
Commy
Prince
Its my historical hand-book by Urganov & Katsva.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Nazional'nost': ta samaya
As far as I know, from a historical point of view, Germany got blame for the war for telling Austria to "Do as they please" regarding the assassination, which got them dragged into the war, and being one of the dominant European powers they were more than likely one of the last to get beaten, hence why they probably got some blame for it.
Still, in a time of imperialist motivations and colonial intentions, do you think anyone else would want to stand up and claim it was their fault for the war too? Their PR would be atrocious.
On top of that, Russia had been taken over by the Communists by the end of the war and they were perhaps the only other powerful player on the table able to try absolve Germany of blame, seeing as the Tsar was related to the Kaiser somehow, they might have cobbled some sort of support together. Although I suppose WW1 really did ruin the monarchies of Europe, not to mention the economic destruction it wrought after.
France had a long running 'dislike' of Germany, to put it lightly. They pressed for blaming Germany for the war and to make them completely incapable of fighting another war, hence the harsh Treaty of Versailles. If I remember correctly, France was responsible for some of the points being specifically drawn up against Germany.
Still, in a time of imperialist motivations and colonial intentions, do you think anyone else would want to stand up and claim it was their fault for the war too? Their PR would be atrocious.
On top of that, Russia had been taken over by the Communists by the end of the war and they were perhaps the only other powerful player on the table able to try absolve Germany of blame, seeing as the Tsar was related to the Kaiser somehow, they might have cobbled some sort of support together. Although I suppose WW1 really did ruin the monarchies of Europe, not to mention the economic destruction it wrought after.
France had a long running 'dislike' of Germany, to put it lightly. They pressed for blaming Germany for the war and to make them completely incapable of fighting another war, hence the harsh Treaty of Versailles. If I remember correctly, France was responsible for some of the points being specifically drawn up against Germany.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Indeed the French were the leading force in Versailles. They wanted to weaken Germany and restore the old times in which France was showing her greatness by raiding Germany without being able to be punished. However this was the first step to a new war, leading to a humilating defeat of the French forces in 1940.
Adler
Adler
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
There were many reasons for the Balkan powder keg to turn into a World War.
France wanted a pay back for the lost war against Prussia/Germany of 1871.
The colonization and naval buildation race of United Kingdon & Germany.
The attempt to dominate the Balkans by Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey and Russia.
The alliance web that bid the European power's to help each other if one of them was attacked. The Allies: UK, France, Serbia and Russia. The Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, plus the secret member's that had a none official alliance with the Central's, Ottoman Turkey and Bulgaria.
The Serbian nationalist goal to create a unified slav state into the balkan's.
And there were many more reasons for the war to start. Germany was blamed because it had caused the most casualties and damage to the Allies, and the other Central power nations no longer existed, Austria-Hungary had fallen to civil war, Ottoman Turkey faced a coup and later collapse and Bulgaria was not really done that much damage.
France wanted a pay back for the lost war against Prussia/Germany of 1871.
The colonization and naval buildation race of United Kingdon & Germany.
The attempt to dominate the Balkans by Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey and Russia.
The alliance web that bid the European power's to help each other if one of them was attacked. The Allies: UK, France, Serbia and Russia. The Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, plus the secret member's that had a none official alliance with the Central's, Ottoman Turkey and Bulgaria.
The Serbian nationalist goal to create a unified slav state into the balkan's.
And there were many more reasons for the war to start. Germany was blamed because it had caused the most casualties and damage to the Allies, and the other Central power nations no longer existed, Austria-Hungary had fallen to civil war, Ottoman Turkey faced a coup and later collapse and Bulgaria was not really done that much damage.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Delete it. Wrong thread.
Adler
Adler
The question this thread asks is a bit distorted I think, but the ultimate question of who is responsible for the outbreak of the First World War is one that will be asked continuously so long as civilization exists, and the answers will not be the same each time. History is a process of examination, and our veiw of the First World War - 91 years after the fact; indeed today is the 91st anniversary of the official outbreak of that war - will always change as our view of ourselves and the outcomes of that war change. We are already aware of some of the consequences of the war, 91 years on, that those in 1918 did not know and in some cases could not have guessed. This changes how we see these events.
I've read through this thread - always love to read - but I'll just give a broad response, with one exception:
This is, I'm afraid, not true. The Belgians were not dumb enough in 1914 to allow one side and not the other onto their territory, a sure casus belli. Even worse, even the German propaganda you are trying to rely on did not claim as much. The German ultimatum of 02. August (full text available here) only claimed that Berlin somehow knew French troops were planning on invading Germany through Belgium, and that Belgium should therefore allow German troops free transit to pre-emptively invade France. The only other mention of any French invasion through Belgium is in the Belgian response to Germany:
Moreover, France had, in order to tip the extremely delicate balance of "doves" and "hawks" in the British cabinet, withdrawn the French army 10 kilometers from the German and Belgian frontiers, to ensure that no incident could be misconstrued as French aggression.
The German invasion of Belgium was completely and unequivocally unprovoked by anything the Belgians or French did, and was a product exclusively of German strategic design. To quote Clemenceau when he was once accosted by a German journalist as he left the Versailles palace in 1919 about what future generations will say about the Versailles Treaty, "I don't know what they will say, but I do know they won't say that Belgium invaded Germany." Apparently Clemenceau hadn't counted on the extraordinary historical fantasy world of Herr Adler.
Now, to the point:
There are several ways to look at "how the war started in 1914". My mini-article, quoted at the beginning of this thread thereabouts, takes a view of the actual events of June-July 1914. In that view, an objective look at those events points more towards Germany as the first power that committed to the idea of a world, or at least Continental war. Germany, plagued by its fears of Russian military growth and feeling isolated and constrained by the alliances of 1914, made a conscious decision on July 7 that it wanted this war, and now, because (so Berlin felt) time was not on its side and only now was German militrary strength ready enough to face-off with Russia before St. Petersburg could fully mobilize its considerable military power, and then turn westwards for a final showdown with France. The Kaiser did waver a bit in the week prior to 28. July - the actual outbreak of hostilities - but overall he and the German establishment had become convinced that now was as good as ever.
This reading of the events is quite damning for the Germans, but if we take a step back to look at the larger circumstances that helped create the environment Berlin found itself making those crucial decisions in, we see that there is more to learn. To begin with, I'll quote none other than the Rowan Atkinson TV character "Blackadder", from the last show of the 4th season - set in the British trenches of World War I:
First:
and Second:
(Quotes taken from: this Blackadder fan site.)
The essence is that for as reprehensible as we today find German militarism, expansionism and naked imperialism in 1914, the reality of course is that the Germans were desperately trying to emulate the example of Western Europe, Britain in particular. 1914 was the tail end of the age of empires, when a few relatively small states in Western Europe controlled most of the world's land surface, and held the peoples of those lands in various forms and stages of captivity. Even innocent little Belgium was not so innocent; since the 1880s Belgium had been running an extremely cruel slave state in the Belgian Congo where native Africans were stripped from their native communities and forced to labor in extreme conditions in mines and on rubber polantations, with unknown millions (estimates range from 3 million to as many as 20 million African deaths) perishing in the process. The American poet Vachel Lindsay, quoted in the powerful monograph King Leopold's Ghost (by Adam Hochschild), created the famous phrase:
The Polish-English writer Jozef Korzenowski (known better by his English pseudonym, "Joseph Conrad") is said to have based his story "Heart of Darkness" on the Belgian Congo, which he had visited as a young sailor.
Mind you, none of this is to excuse Germany's behavior in 1914 - rather to explain that within a certain context, Germany was merely reaching for what Britain and France already had, and the means Germany used to achieve its empire were not significantly different than those of the Atlantic states. By 1914 the idea of benevolence had become popular in Britain and France as a rationalization for their continued rule over their empires, but they were empires nonetheless and had been achieved - think India in 1857, the Dutch East Indies in 1946 or Indochine in 1954 - in much the same way Wilhelm II intended to create his empire in 1914.
These are both valid ways of looking at the causes of the First World War, and I think it best that both (and others) also be understood. This is not relativism - for there is little doubt that a Western, allied victory in 1918 was far preferable for Europe than a German victory - but it is to understand that the conditions that brought about the war were born of more than just German dreams of grandeur, though those were terrible enough on their own.
re: Serbia: I think a critical look at Serbia is indeed important, and it is not wrong to (re-)evaluate Serbia's actions in 1914 within the context of the world we know today. It is not so much a witch-hunt or a need to assign blame, as much as a need to understand the conditions that brought about the war. Serbia in 1914 was driven by a powerful ideology of nationalism, and was determined to gather all the lands it viewed as historically Serbian under the control of the Serbian state. Using the analogy I just used for the West and Germany, certainly there is cause to see the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which ruled historic Serbian lands and had a substantial ethnic Serbian population, as a contributor to Balkan tensions and problems, and indeed I go into them in my article but the formula of Serbia-deserving to rule all such lands and therefore being absolved of any responsibility for whatever consequences applied in its cause (through whatever means) is a little too automatic, and needs a re-think. The events of the 1990s in the dissolution of Yugoslavia are tied to these same beliefs and events, so it is important to understand them. I'm not blaming Serbia for World War I, as I make clear in my article that Serbia (or any other Balkan issue of the say) merely served as a pretext for the Great Powers' own desires and motivations, but on the other hand no honest historian can completely ignore the Austro-Serb conflict and how both sides played out their role in it.
I've read through this thread - always love to read - but I'll just give a broad response, with one exception:
This is, I'm afraid, not true. The Belgians were not dumb enough in 1914 to allow one side and not the other onto their territory, a sure casus belli. Even worse, even the German propaganda you are trying to rely on did not claim as much. The German ultimatum of 02. August (full text available here) only claimed that Berlin somehow knew French troops were planning on invading Germany through Belgium, and that Belgium should therefore allow German troops free transit to pre-emptively invade France. The only other mention of any French invasion through Belgium is in the Belgian response to Germany:
Moreover, France had, in order to tip the extremely delicate balance of "doves" and "hawks" in the British cabinet, withdrawn the French army 10 kilometers from the German and Belgian frontiers, to ensure that no incident could be misconstrued as French aggression.
The German invasion of Belgium was completely and unequivocally unprovoked by anything the Belgians or French did, and was a product exclusively of German strategic design. To quote Clemenceau when he was once accosted by a German journalist as he left the Versailles palace in 1919 about what future generations will say about the Versailles Treaty, "I don't know what they will say, but I do know they won't say that Belgium invaded Germany." Apparently Clemenceau hadn't counted on the extraordinary historical fantasy world of Herr Adler.
Now, to the point:
There are several ways to look at "how the war started in 1914". My mini-article, quoted at the beginning of this thread thereabouts, takes a view of the actual events of June-July 1914. In that view, an objective look at those events points more towards Germany as the first power that committed to the idea of a world, or at least Continental war. Germany, plagued by its fears of Russian military growth and feeling isolated and constrained by the alliances of 1914, made a conscious decision on July 7 that it wanted this war, and now, because (so Berlin felt) time was not on its side and only now was German militrary strength ready enough to face-off with Russia before St. Petersburg could fully mobilize its considerable military power, and then turn westwards for a final showdown with France. The Kaiser did waver a bit in the week prior to 28. July - the actual outbreak of hostilities - but overall he and the German establishment had become convinced that now was as good as ever.
This reading of the events is quite damning for the Germans, but if we take a step back to look at the larger circumstances that helped create the environment Berlin found itself making those crucial decisions in, we see that there is more to learn. To begin with, I'll quote none other than the Rowan Atkinson TV character "Blackadder", from the last show of the 4th season - set in the British trenches of World War I:
First:
and Second:
(Quotes taken from: this Blackadder fan site.)
The essence is that for as reprehensible as we today find German militarism, expansionism and naked imperialism in 1914, the reality of course is that the Germans were desperately trying to emulate the example of Western Europe, Britain in particular. 1914 was the tail end of the age of empires, when a few relatively small states in Western Europe controlled most of the world's land surface, and held the peoples of those lands in various forms and stages of captivity. Even innocent little Belgium was not so innocent; since the 1880s Belgium had been running an extremely cruel slave state in the Belgian Congo where native Africans were stripped from their native communities and forced to labor in extreme conditions in mines and on rubber polantations, with unknown millions (estimates range from 3 million to as many as 20 million African deaths) perishing in the process. The American poet Vachel Lindsay, quoted in the powerful monograph King Leopold's Ghost (by Adam Hochschild), created the famous phrase:
The Polish-English writer Jozef Korzenowski (known better by his English pseudonym, "Joseph Conrad") is said to have based his story "Heart of Darkness" on the Belgian Congo, which he had visited as a young sailor.
Mind you, none of this is to excuse Germany's behavior in 1914 - rather to explain that within a certain context, Germany was merely reaching for what Britain and France already had, and the means Germany used to achieve its empire were not significantly different than those of the Atlantic states. By 1914 the idea of benevolence had become popular in Britain and France as a rationalization for their continued rule over their empires, but they were empires nonetheless and had been achieved - think India in 1857, the Dutch East Indies in 1946 or Indochine in 1954 - in much the same way Wilhelm II intended to create his empire in 1914.
These are both valid ways of looking at the causes of the First World War, and I think it best that both (and others) also be understood. This is not relativism - for there is little doubt that a Western, allied victory in 1918 was far preferable for Europe than a German victory - but it is to understand that the conditions that brought about the war were born of more than just German dreams of grandeur, though those were terrible enough on their own.
re: Serbia: I think a critical look at Serbia is indeed important, and it is not wrong to (re-)evaluate Serbia's actions in 1914 within the context of the world we know today. It is not so much a witch-hunt or a need to assign blame, as much as a need to understand the conditions that brought about the war. Serbia in 1914 was driven by a powerful ideology of nationalism, and was determined to gather all the lands it viewed as historically Serbian under the control of the Serbian state. Using the analogy I just used for the West and Germany, certainly there is cause to see the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which ruled historic Serbian lands and had a substantial ethnic Serbian population, as a contributor to Balkan tensions and problems, and indeed I go into them in my article but the formula of Serbia-deserving to rule all such lands and therefore being absolved of any responsibility for whatever consequences applied in its cause (through whatever means) is a little too automatic, and needs a re-think. The events of the 1990s in the dissolution of Yugoslavia are tied to these same beliefs and events, so it is important to understand them. I'm not blaming Serbia for World War I, as I make clear in my article that Serbia (or any other Balkan issue of the say) merely served as a pretext for the Great Powers' own desires and motivations, but on the other hand no honest historian can completely ignore the Austro-Serb conflict and how both sides played out their role in it.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
At first I saw the first time the Belgish answer and I was wrong. I did not search for this source. However as I said before: It was a mistake to declare war on France. They should have shot the first time. Then I am sure they would have invaded Belgium, too. Nevertheless I am not sure if then Britain would have not declared war on Germany either...
Colonialism was a cause of ww1 indeed. But Germany in 1914 had only trouble with Belgish Congo. Like also Britain and France. All three demanded a more human regime in the colony. Of all colonial crimes made by Europeans on the dark continent the Belgish regime in Congo was the worst. Nevertheless there was a possibility to solve all trouble Germany had with Britain in 1914. Also in German colonies the troops there were not enough to fight against other big enemies. I mean to hold the colony against French or British forces seemed impossible. And indeed only German East Africa could be defended until 1918 (with ingenium and luck). And without Britain as ally France would not dare a war with Germany and without France Russia would not have declared war, too. A year later the whole situation would have been solved on a completely different way without a war. No, Germany as well as Britain could only lose and gain nothing worth waging a war. The second error Germany made in this crise was the Card Blanche. However this was made to give the Austrians a good position in the thought conference. It was never intended to be used for a war with the great powers at least. Also the shock of the crime was too fresh. I already explained the French and Russian positions. However we have to relook on Serbia once again:
Austria was a declining power since at least 1866. The enthnic tensions were great but still the young arch duke was a liberal man with the ability to stabilize the empire. This was against the wishes of the Black Hand. They wanted a Great Serbia. This is nearly the very same nationalism Milosevic had. Of course all historical analogies are dubious as there was another background in the 1990´s than in 1914. Nevertheless the aims were nearly the same. So the Black Hand tried to destabilize Austria. And Austria was not keen about that. In this atmosphere the Black Hand planned the assassination of the Austrian crown prince. He should die to destabilize the whole country. If the Russians helped them is not known, fact is, the Serbian state helped them. They gave them weapons and money. Yet the influence of that terroristical organisation was so big, that the Serbian Prime minister was fearing for his life if he warned the Austrians. So Serbian policy was under strong influence of the Black Hand. The Austrians after the assassination wanted to punish also the men behind the assassin. So they made an ultimatum, a harsh one. However it was accepted by the Serbians. Only one point was rejected: a neutral investigation in Serbia. Austria, which was not trusting in conferences any more after the last were with an unsufficient result, went the route to war despite the German attempts to calm the situation down and despite the retaking of the Card Blanche. They knew therefore it was too late. They forced the Germans to declare war on Russia when Russia was declaring war to defend his own interests on the Balkan. So the nations slipped into the war. The German demands on France were harsh and they also knew the French would never agree as they knew they would fight with Russia to fullfil the alliance and to take revenge. So the Germans made the only error which they are to be blamed: Shooting the first shot and invading Belgium.
A last word on the results: You said it was the best the Allies won ww1. This depends on the time of the end of ww1. If the Germans would have taken Paris in 1914 ww1 would have been over with only relative little losses. France would have lost a bit of Lorraine and had to destroy some fortresses like Verdun as well as some allied colonies would have become German. Serbia would not have been annexed but still punished and Belgium would have lost its neutrality as they would have to agree to a right of passage and perhaps loosing Belgish Congo. This would have been the best for that colony. All so called "plans", someone of you will respond, were only thoughts by single persons, not much worth like a plan made in a pub. However such a victory would be bad it would have been much better than Versailles.
Although we can argue by 1914, 1916, 1917 and 1918 a German victory was clearly preferrable. The Germans would have made a mild peace. The status quo ante would have rearosen, perhaps with the ending of some pre war quarrels. Versailles would never happen. As we all know Versailles was the road leading to Hitler. Stop some of you will argue the harsh peace of Brest Litowsk. Indeed it was a harsh peace. But we have to see the situation: This peace was the base for many countries to declare their independence: Poland, Ukraine, Finnland, Lithunia, Latvia, Estonia,... All of them were (for at least a short time) independent from Russian rule and they were glad to be so. Also we have to consider who was sitting on the Russian side: Lenin. He and his Bolshevics were also a danger for Germany and should so kept small. If the Czar would still rule the conditions would have been much milder.
Others of you might argue with the peace of Frankfurt, 1871. Well if you believe it or don´t: This peace was mild in contrast to the peace of Tilsit, in which Prussia was only saved because of the Czar loosing all of the west Elbian territory to Napoleon (at least his sattelite states).
All in all a German victory would have been better and way preferrable than Versailles. Another, milder peace treaty would be another discussion.
Adler
Colonialism was a cause of ww1 indeed. But Germany in 1914 had only trouble with Belgish Congo. Like also Britain and France. All three demanded a more human regime in the colony. Of all colonial crimes made by Europeans on the dark continent the Belgish regime in Congo was the worst. Nevertheless there was a possibility to solve all trouble Germany had with Britain in 1914. Also in German colonies the troops there were not enough to fight against other big enemies. I mean to hold the colony against French or British forces seemed impossible. And indeed only German East Africa could be defended until 1918 (with ingenium and luck). And without Britain as ally France would not dare a war with Germany and without France Russia would not have declared war, too. A year later the whole situation would have been solved on a completely different way without a war. No, Germany as well as Britain could only lose and gain nothing worth waging a war. The second error Germany made in this crise was the Card Blanche. However this was made to give the Austrians a good position in the thought conference. It was never intended to be used for a war with the great powers at least. Also the shock of the crime was too fresh. I already explained the French and Russian positions. However we have to relook on Serbia once again:
Austria was a declining power since at least 1866. The enthnic tensions were great but still the young arch duke was a liberal man with the ability to stabilize the empire. This was against the wishes of the Black Hand. They wanted a Great Serbia. This is nearly the very same nationalism Milosevic had. Of course all historical analogies are dubious as there was another background in the 1990´s than in 1914. Nevertheless the aims were nearly the same. So the Black Hand tried to destabilize Austria. And Austria was not keen about that. In this atmosphere the Black Hand planned the assassination of the Austrian crown prince. He should die to destabilize the whole country. If the Russians helped them is not known, fact is, the Serbian state helped them. They gave them weapons and money. Yet the influence of that terroristical organisation was so big, that the Serbian Prime minister was fearing for his life if he warned the Austrians. So Serbian policy was under strong influence of the Black Hand. The Austrians after the assassination wanted to punish also the men behind the assassin. So they made an ultimatum, a harsh one. However it was accepted by the Serbians. Only one point was rejected: a neutral investigation in Serbia. Austria, which was not trusting in conferences any more after the last were with an unsufficient result, went the route to war despite the German attempts to calm the situation down and despite the retaking of the Card Blanche. They knew therefore it was too late. They forced the Germans to declare war on Russia when Russia was declaring war to defend his own interests on the Balkan. So the nations slipped into the war. The German demands on France were harsh and they also knew the French would never agree as they knew they would fight with Russia to fullfil the alliance and to take revenge. So the Germans made the only error which they are to be blamed: Shooting the first shot and invading Belgium.
A last word on the results: You said it was the best the Allies won ww1. This depends on the time of the end of ww1. If the Germans would have taken Paris in 1914 ww1 would have been over with only relative little losses. France would have lost a bit of Lorraine and had to destroy some fortresses like Verdun as well as some allied colonies would have become German. Serbia would not have been annexed but still punished and Belgium would have lost its neutrality as they would have to agree to a right of passage and perhaps loosing Belgish Congo. This would have been the best for that colony. All so called "plans", someone of you will respond, were only thoughts by single persons, not much worth like a plan made in a pub. However such a victory would be bad it would have been much better than Versailles.
Although we can argue by 1914, 1916, 1917 and 1918 a German victory was clearly preferrable. The Germans would have made a mild peace. The status quo ante would have rearosen, perhaps with the ending of some pre war quarrels. Versailles would never happen. As we all know Versailles was the road leading to Hitler. Stop some of you will argue the harsh peace of Brest Litowsk. Indeed it was a harsh peace. But we have to see the situation: This peace was the base for many countries to declare their independence: Poland, Ukraine, Finnland, Lithunia, Latvia, Estonia,... All of them were (for at least a short time) independent from Russian rule and they were glad to be so. Also we have to consider who was sitting on the Russian side: Lenin. He and his Bolshevics were also a danger for Germany and should so kept small. If the Czar would still rule the conditions would have been much milder.
Others of you might argue with the peace of Frankfurt, 1871. Well if you believe it or don´t: This peace was mild in contrast to the peace of Tilsit, in which Prussia was only saved because of the Czar loosing all of the west Elbian territory to Napoleon (at least his sattelite states).
All in all a German victory would have been better and way preferrable than Versailles. Another, milder peace treaty would be another discussion.
Adler
Zardnaar
Deity
Before people start jumping over Adler for suggesting Germany win WW1, I remember I started a thread about this scenario. One imperilism was as good as another in most ways. Germany was less progressive in some ways but not by alot. A 1914 German victory with hindsight may have been the best- even for France. WW2 may still have happened but I doubt the Holocaust would have. No Hitler, maybe no Lenin and Stalin. No German occupation of France for 4 years. And no trench warfare either- no Somme, Verdun etc.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
YNCS said:
That sounds like a War on Terror to me
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
In the German and mostly in the Austrian point of view indeed it was to a certain degree.
Adler
Adler
Gelion
Retired Captain
Yeah one can surely draw a number of parallels between Austrian Balkan Expansion and US war on terror..... Austrians has the same lack of reasons for being in the Balkans and US in Iraq...Adler17 said:
historyguy
Chieftain
It is really simple why WW1 happened ! It is not Serbia or Germany or some of the big powers to blame. It is simply Austrian empire wanted land(colonies or whatever you want) and because Austrian empire could not expand to the north, east or west(we all know why!) the only thing they could do is to expand to the south. First they annexed Bosnia and then the tension started.....and to mix this with the tensions throughout the europe we got WW1. As for Serbia and their nationalistic movement and all that talk with big Serbia...give me a break. The land was all divided in 19th century when diplomatic talks among big powers and balkan nationas started. Then first and second balkan war the territory was pretty much divided among Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Of course here comes Austria with their politics of expanding south....I mean in Bosnia as for population majority were serbs ! That what census says which Austria itself made. So who was occupying who ? And why all started ?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Historyguy, wellcome here. It is an old thread here and it is not very liked to renew them. However Austria was not going for conquest. Although Austria had much to do with the escalation though. Nevertheless we have to see the situation: Because of the many peoples of the empire big problems occured. Neither the Germans nor especially the Hungarian parts of the empire wanted another ethnic group in their empire. They wanted to punish the men behind Princip. Ironically if they did not wait, but at once declared war, not much would have happened though. Nevertheless in this point, to conquer more lands, Austria was innocent. They had troubles to maintain their empire. They didn't need another people or territory to conquer.
Nevertheless, as it is an old thread I suggest to close it.
Adler
Nevertheless, as it is an old thread I suggest to close it.
Adler
many countries were at fault for starting ww1, many countries are to blame but the most blame falls with Germany they promised austria that they will go to war if they ask by giving austria a blank check fo war they have a lot of blame to take,
history says that germany started ww1 it over-exagerates this because germany lost the war and in doing so had to sign the war guilt clause as part of the treaty of versailles in which they take full responsibility for the war
history says that germany started ww1 it over-exagerates this because germany lost the war and in doing so had to sign the war guilt clause as part of the treaty of versailles in which they take full responsibility for the war
Similar threads
