Who Started World War I?

[Hauksbee 103]

Historical Revisionism Update:

Yes, Germany (Mostly) Started World War I

 

 

 

 

 

     The new year has barely begun, and already there has been an upsurge in World War I-related punditry. Among those itching for a fight over the origins of the First World War is Slate’s Matt Yglesias. On New Year’s Eve, Yglesias offered his own somewhat Slatepitchy take on World War I, claiming that the Great War was “primarily about Russo-Serbian desire to destroy Austria and France’s desire to reclaim Alsace and Lorraine.”

This is, to say the least, a rather curious way to describe the outbreak of the First World War. Sure, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by pro-Serb Bosnians may have set the spark for the Great War. But the actual outbreak of hostilities began with an Austrian declaration of war on Serbia, German declarations of war on France and Russia, and a German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. So what gives?

Yglesias’ main source in support of his view here is The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, a recent revisionist history of the outbreak of the Great War by historian Christopher Clark. Clark’s book attempts to shift blame for the Great War from Germany and Austria onto France, Russia, and Serbia. The gist of Clark’s argument was aptly summarized by Yglesias in another post (written on the 99th anniversary of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination):

 

Serbia and its Russian superpower sponsor were genuinely trying to destroy the Habsburg empire. Franz Ferdinand’s assassins really did have ties to the Serbian state… The authorities in Vienna and Berlin had a legitimate interest in pushing back against the attempted dismemberment of the Habsburg state. And then things got nasty in no small part thanks to French politicians having persuaded themselves that a Balkan crisis would be the best possible shot at teaming up with Russia to wage a war against Germany and take back Alsace and Lorraine.

 

 

I’ve read "The Sleepwalkers", and can attest that it is a gripping read. And as someone who is both a fan of the Habsburgs and a bit of a Francophobe, I should be sympathetic to Yglesias and Clark’s view here. But I’m afraid the case just isn’t persuasive. It’s true, for example, that Archduke Ferdinand’s assassins had links with the Serbian terrorist organization the Black Hand, and that members of the Black Hand had infiltrated the highest levels of the Serbian government. In the abstract, that sounds pretty ominous. But what that leaves out is that the Black Hand opposed the pre-WWI government of Nikola Pasic on the grounds that it was not sufficiently belligerent against Austria. Just one month before the assassination, Russia intervened to stop an attempt by the Black Hand to oust Pasic in favor of more a militant faction of the government.

 

 

While Serbia definitely wanted to dismember the Austrian empire, the same was true in reverse. Austria wanted to dismember Serbia, and was devising plans to do so long before the assassination. Within a week of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, Germany had agreed to back Austrian military action against Serbia, even if this resulted in war with Russia. After some characteristic dithering, Austria then decided to issue an ultimatum to Serbia, making demands the denial of which would provide the pretext for war. The German ambassador to Austria reported to his government on July 14 that the Austria ultimatum “is being composed so that the possibility of its being accepted is practically excluded.” As Britain’s Foreign Secretary Edward Grey said after receiving news of the ultimatum’s text, “Any nation that accepted conditions like that would really cease to count as an independent nation.”

 

 

So given Austrian and German actions, war was unavoidable. The best one can say is that, had Russia abandoned Serbia, the war might have been a limited one. But that’s a far cry from saying the war was about a “Russo-Serbian desire to destroy Austria.” As Max Hastings puts matters in his recent study of the outbreak of the Great War, Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War, “Those who today attribute to Russia principal responsibility for war are obliged to rely on the [argument] that the Tsar should have preserved wider European peace by allowing Austria to conduct a limited war to crush Serbia. Such a case can be made; but it seems essential to acknowledge its terms, rather than attempt to construct a spurious indictment that the Russians were guilty of duplicity.”

 

 

What about the other half of Yglesias’ explanation, that the Great War was caused by “France’s desire to reclaim Alsace and Lorraine”? To begin with, any attempt to shift blame for World War I from Germany onto the French-Russian alliance has to deal with Germany’s responsibility for creating that alliance in the first place. If France wanted Alsace and Lorraine back, it was only because it had lost the territories in a war engineered by Germany. Karl Marx, in a moment of rare foresight, predicted that Germany’s decision to annex Alsace and Lorraine would end “by forcing France into the arms of Russia.” Similarly, it was Germany’s decision not to renew its alliance with Russia that led to increasing enmity between Russia and Austria, and to the creation of an anti-German alliance between Russia and France. And the German decision to rebuff British overtures in favor of a naval arms race (not to mention provoking the Agadir Crisis) pushed yet another potential ally into the enemy camp. Germany’s ability to lose friends and alienate people would continue during World War I itself, with such brilliant diplomatic maneuvers as the Zimmerman telegraph, unrestricted submarine warfare, and the decision to let Lenin back into Russia.

 

 

But leave all that aside. It’s certainly true that France wanted to get Alsace and Lorraine back from Germany, and that France knew the only hope it had of beating Germany in a war was with Russia as an ally. But this had been true for decades prior to 1914. Had France and Russian really wanted to start a war with the central powers, they had plenty of opportunities. But they didn’t. Clark himself concedes this, noting that “at no point did the French or the Russian strategists involved plan to launch a war of aggression against the central powers.”

 

 

What’s more, far from being an instigator, France was disengaged during much of the July Crisis. Attention in France during July 1914 was focused on a particularly lurid murder trial involving the wife of a prominent politician. During the key period of the Austrian ultimatum, both the French president and prime minister were stuck on a boat returning from St. Petersburg. And when leaders did finally arrive in Paris, their moves were not aggressive. The French prime minister cabled Russia on July 30 that it “should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces” and the French army itself was pulled back six miles from the German frontier.

 

 

By contrast, as the July Crisis dragged on Germany became increasingly insistent on using the Austro-Serbian conflict to spark a general European war. According to the dominant view among the German army at the time, war with Russia was inevitable, and delay would only allow Russia to grow stronger militarily.

 

 

Admittedly, as you get into the final days of July of 1914, things get incredibly complicated. Within each of Great Powers there were those arguing for a wider war, others trying to maintain peace, and still others attempting to hedge their bets, or who vacillated between one extreme and another.  But while there may have been those in Germany trying to step back from the brink of war, they were effectively outmaneuvered by those such as Moltke who wanted war. Functionally, Germany spent the final days squelching peace initiatives, encouraging the Austrians to proceed with the invasion, and ultimately launching an attack on France through Belgium that brought the wavering British firmly into the war on the Allied side.

Ultimately, then, while France, Russia, and Britain may have been willing to accept war rather than abandon an ally, it was Germany that actually acted to bring a general European conflagration into being. In his book Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, historian David Fromkin puts it succinctly: “Germany deliberately started a European war to keep from being overtaken by Russia.”

 

 

Fromkin’s assessment of French and Russian involvement in the war is equally succinct: “What drove France and Russia to join in the fray can be covered in a sentence: Germany declared war on them, and they defended themselves.”

 

 

Disagreements over the causes of World War I lack the policy relevance of arguments over Obamacare or NSA surveillance. Still, over the next few years countless pundits will try to analogize current events to 1914, and it would be a shame if they did so based on the mistaken belief that the Great War was really a French plot. Revisionist history can be fun, but in this case it is just wrong. The First World War, like its sequel, was Germany’s fault.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Hauksbee

[Snailman 517]

It is better to ask who did not want. Basically everyone was happy (on the ruling level) about the war.

 

What I can add, is little, but these things are often neglected

1. Franz Ferdinand was a mean chauvinist, anti-hungarian despot - his death was inevitable and desired. Upon his coronation, their empire would engulfed into another revolution (and liberation war) such as in 1848. (But this time no Russian support to turn the tide)

2. Gavrilo Princip, the assassin was allegedly a hired gun paid by the russian tsarist secret service (Russian Imperial sources) to provoke the Habsburg family into a war that cost them too much. Anticipation was that the Austrian Empire could be easily defeated by the Imperial Russian forces - the reality happened differently however. Conclusion is, that - due to various internal and external causes - Russia desired war more than any of the european powers.

3. There was no special desire to destroy Austria-Hungary (Especially that Russia saved their precious Habsburg ass in the 1848-49 Liberation War against us), real Russian aims were the Balkans and the Bosporus - to retake the ancient center of Orthodoxy, Byzantium (Istanbul) in these they also confronted Turkey, arch-enemy for several centuries.

4. Proof of these are their role (visible and covert alike) in the Balkan wars which predestined the future conflict.

5. The Monarchy (Austria-Hungary)  a fragile creation, held together by force, was sentenced to death anyway... The method the Entente killed it and created a series of artificial vassal states or their pitiful revenge - is another story. Sadly, Clemenceau and Wilson (and their dog Masarik, another tsarist agent) in particular are the same for us like Hitler for the jews.

[33LIMA 972]

It's maybe worth mentioning the influence of Kaiser Wilhelm, whose desire to catch up in terms of Empire- and fleet-building tended to increase the liklihood of conflict. But also from the German Army's standpoint, if your job is the defence of a country only recently formed from several smaller states which had been the battleground where other countries had fought their wars over several hundred years preceeding; and the consequence of a serious failure in defence policy was liable to be powerful enemies back stomping on your territory in a matter of days; then a pre-emptive strike against potential enemies probably looks more like an attractive option, than the power-hungry grab for European domination that it might apear to be, from those on the receiving end.

.

[+Trotski 839]

It was a family tiff.

[Olham 164]

I have not read "The Sleepwalkers" (yet, but will read it soon), but from all I did read, I came to the conclusion,

that saying, a single country made the Great War happen, would be like saying nowadays, that the Americans

were guilty for the climate change.

The whole constellation of powers was like a growing ammunition dump with many uncovered fuses, in which

several people from different countries did smoke cigarettes despite all the warning signs. It may have been

the German cigarette that ignited the powder. But if it had not, soon someone elses cigarette would have.

The Germans were closely watching the Russians, the French watched the growing German industrial and

military power, and the British must have watched the building of German warships, and Germany's desire

for colonies. The "established" European powers feared the newcomer, and teamed up with Russia.

A decision that they may have regretted later.

 

And the second world war - most serious historians agree here - would not have happened without the harsh

peace treaty conditions against Germany after the first world war.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Olham

[+Trotski 839]

Aside from my flippant remark about it being a family tiff, which in some respects, was actually an issue, I think we have to transport ourselves into the mindset of the time, as we look at the First War with a modern mindset in part, the whole Empire building thing was paramount then, the 4 of the major powers had Empires, and expanding, and or keeping hold of those was vastly important at that time, the same with all Empires throughout history, also there were perceived slights with the tripartite pact between England France and Russia, which put the paranoid Kaiser off his Cornflakes somewhat, then with all the unrest in the Slavic world and Austro Hungary flexing its muscles, it was a bomb just waiting to blow, the Naval power race was another aspect, so what caused it all ? It was I believe a forgone conclusion, and no one thing lit the blue touch  paper,  and what a bloody awful waste of time, resources, life, and just about everything else. Because really, at the end of the day, 1914 -18 achieved very little, except for the advances in aviation, and the usual advances that come from conflict, and then the worst part was it did indeed sew the seeds of WWII as the treaty of Versailles was horrendous for the German people, I do wonder though if Germany hadn't turned to National Socialism, what the world map would look like now, and how more impact the spread of Communism would have had.

[Snailman 517]

It was a family tiff.

LOL Sure... Grandma should've spanked them all...

 

 

Also, please think above empires and countries. We should remember, that exactly a a year before WWI has been founded FED and IMF. Wilson - again. In our times it is very clear that states and governments are just virtual masks - the real map of the world looks very differently. I begin to think that WWI was the margin where money controlled politics and not vice versa - the way most people still think it is.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Snailman

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

I had a college professor who's life thesis was Great Britain started WW1. You disagree you get auto B grade. Also if Niall Ferguson (tool bag) farted you could smell it in class.

 

Violation of Belgian neutrality is what caused a regional conflict to go global.

 

My opinion is Germany, for making a bad situation worse.

Edited March 24, 2016 by CrazyhorseB34

[Hauksbee 103]

Violation of Belgian neutrality is what caused a regional conflict to go global.

True. The "Low Countries" were traditionally the European highway for armies to move north/south. In the wake of the Napoleonic wars (1839) England strong-armed the rest of Europe into affirming the perpetual neutrality of Belgium (Treaty of London) Declaring this invasion route to be out-of-bounds was supposed to secure peace on the continent. It was the cornerstone of British foreign policy and they took it very seriously. When the Kaiser dismissed it as "a scrap of paper", there was no turning back.

[Olham 164]

The violation of Belgian neutrality, how ever bad it surely was, was a logical strategic idea,

which must have been thought by the British too; at least to their strategists.

The Schlieffen plan was not a new design - it was in the drawers since many years.

 

When Great Britain warned, that the violation of Belgium would make them enter the war,

that was only just a warning and a reason for them to help stopping Germany - due to

their own world-wide interests. They just didn't want Germany to rise to be one of the

big players in Europe.

All throughout history, the strong powers have never ever cared about the neutrality

of any small, military weak country. Not the British, and not the French.

 

So, their pointing on Germany with their fingers only shows the typical double standards

of the politicians (then and now).

 

But, to make that clear: the German Kaiser was politically a catastrophy for Germany

and for Europe, and his inconstancy on one hand, and his aggressiveness on the other,

sure fanned the flames in a catastrophic way.

'Craving for status' was a common German disease in those days, fanned by the papers.

 

I wished there had been a diplomatic solution, to let Germany become one of Europe's

leading nations (which it achieved at long last, after all - so it was a logical evolution).

But too many "leaders" had too many different interests, and tried to prevent that,

while Germany tried to outgun it.

A horrible inability on ALL sides IMHO, to deal with the situation any better.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Olham

[Hauksbee 103]

But, to make that clear: the German Kaiser was politically a catastrophy for Germanyand for Europe, and his inconstancy on one hand, and his aggressiveness on the other,

sure fanned the flames in a catastrophic way.

It was said of Kaiser Wilhelm that, (edit: "his greatest fear was...") "somewhere in the world there was a quarrel going on that he could not be part of."

Edited March 30, 2016 by Hauksbee

[JimAttrill 24]

I'm not sure about the French thoughts at the time, but the general population of Britain and Germany wanted the war.   And so they got it.  You only have to look at photos of happy volunteers on both sides.  This feeling lasted until about 1916.  

[Olham 164]

And so they got it.  You only have to look at photos of happy volunteers on both sides.  This feeling lasted until about 1916.  

 

...until it drowned in the mud.

Even intelligent men like Rudyard Kipling sent their sons to the "great hooray!" -

and only later realised, what such a war meant...

[JimAttrill 24]

what such a war meant.....   Listen to Elgar's Cello Concerto (preferably one by Jacqueline du Pré) and you will know.   It brings tears to my eyes. 

[jeanba 1,918]

I'm not sure about the French thoughts at the time, but the general population of Britain and Germany wanted the war.   And so they got it.  You only have to look at photos of happy volunteers on both sides.  This feeling lasted until about 1916.  

The French politicians wanted  Alsace lorraine, especially the governement, because having back the Alsace Lorraine would be an incredible success

The French Army wanted a revenge

 

The french peasants did not want it, or at least wanted it to be over before fall, for the harvests (=> "home before leaves fall")

The french workers did not want it

 

Of course, those are general ideas, with many specificities

[Olham 164]

what such a war meant.....   Listen to Elgar's Cello Concerto (preferably one by Jacqueline du Pré) and you will know.   It brings tears to my eyes. 

 

Damn, Jim - I had no idea you were so sensible!

But then I just listened into it a bit at AMAZON, and I can imagine that it can bring tears to the eyes.

Cello, or so I find, is generally an instrument to express the sufferings of our souls very deeply.

[Hauksbee 103]

Even intelligent men like Rudyard Kipling sent their sons to the "great hooray!" and only later realised, what such a war meant...

I commend to your attention the film "My Boy, Jack". A sad film about John Kipling (Daniel Radcliffe) who desperately wanted to go to war to get out of the house and away from his father, Rudyard. But no service would have him because his eyesight was so bad that, today, he'd probably be declared legally blind. Rudyard, as Poet Laureate and chief cheerleader for the British Raj, sees this as perfectly normal that a boy would want shed his blood for 'King and Country" and pulls strings and throws all his influence into the attempt to find Jack an officer posting. It's an uphill struggle, but at last he finds an army unit that will take him. The Western Front is (of course) a death sentence for Jack, but still preferable to remaining under his father's thumb. The bitter irony is that at the same time Rudyard Kipling is serving on the Propaganda Board. Their task was to provide stirring posters and other advertisements to sell the war and make it look like a great adventure. They also were tasked with putting the best face on debacles and bloodbaths like The Somme. To do this, they were provided with military intelligence that detailed the incompetence and cock-ups that needed to be hushed up or explained away and at the same time, Rudyard, who now knows what a meat-grinder the Western Front has become, is button-holing all his friends to make Jack a part of it.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Hauksbee

[Olham 164]

Haven't seen the film yet, but I had read about the content - what a terrible family disaster...

 

As to the question in post #1: it seems to me that asking, and pointing out, who STARTED the Great War,

is like a clever attempt to detract attention from the fact, that everyone knew this war seemed to be inevitable;

and that most of the war parties wanted to fight it - from the fact, that this war would have happened anyway,

sooner or later. It seems to me, as if Kaiser Wilhelm was just the "fuse, that went off earliest".

 

It is like asking: who was guilty for all the terrible battles, all the bloodshed and cruelty.

This was not a movie, where you could easily divide by saying, the Entente were the good ones,

and the Central Powers were the bad ones; and Germany was the villain.

It seems to me though, that it is still seen this way by many today.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Olham

[Snailman 517]

Haven't seen the film yet, but I had read about the content - what a terrible family disaster...

 

As to the question in post #1: it seems to me that asking, and pointing out, who STARTED the Great War,

is like a clever attempt to detract attention from the fact, that everyone knew this war seemed to be inevitable;

and that most of the war parties wanted to fight it - from the fact, that this war would have happened anyway,

sooner or later. It seems to me, as if Kaiser Wilhelm was just the "fuse, that went off earliest".

 

It is like asking: who was guilty for all the terrible battles, all the bloodshed and cruelty.

This was not a movie, where you could easily divide by saying, the Entente were the good ones,

and the Central Powers were the bad ones; and Germany was the villain.

It seems to me though, that it is still seen this way by many today.

 

And it is 10 times more true for WW2... The war does not start with the first gun shot.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Well, I don't know who started it..but me and my Sopwith Snipe are gonna finish it! :)

[Hauksbee 103]

Well, I don't know who started it..but me and my Sopwith Snipe are gonna finish it! :)

Whereupon Simon straps on his trusty Snipe and hurls himself into WOFF, with such panache and reckless daring, that the OBD computer code seizes up and declares an armistice!

[Olham 164]

Mmuahahahahaaa!!!

Widow, I tried countless times to win the Great Air War singlehandedly - I always ended up as minced meat...

 

But hear, hear - you are exercising on the Snpe? Must I worry with my obsolete Albatros???

Edited March 31, 2016 by Olham

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Mmuahahahahaaa!!!

Widow, I tried countless times to win the Great Air War singlehandedly - I always ended up as minced meat...

 

But hear, hear - you are exercising on the Snpe? Must I worry with my obsolete Albatros???

 

Be Afraid Herr Olham.... be VERY afraid  

[Olham 164]

Yeah, hum... - aerh - ... any weak spots on a Snipe, perchance?   No? Hmmm...

Where did I put that form again; the application for my pension...

[Olham 164]

On a Tuesday, high over the Western Front...