Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The great powers in 1914 all wanted war. None of them were dragged into the war unwillingly, which makes assigning blame a bit silly. Everyone thought they would gain from the war, and nobody expected it to last for very long. It was a tinderbox that austrohungary was very willing to light, but it could have happened in a lot of ways. If you want to assign blame based on who threw the first punch, then blame the Hapsburgs.

If you want to blame someone for creating the tinderbox situation, you do have to look hard at Germany. While it's understandable that they wanted a colonial empire and prestige to match their position as the greatest continental power, that no longer meant colonization: it meant conflict with other great powers. You can't talk about a need for German empire, while building the most powerful army and a rapidly improving navy unless you plan on fighting. Germany was neither poor nor weak. It was huge, with the most powerful industrial might in the world. The long peace of the 19th century was built on the balance of power, and Germany actively sought hegemony.

Everyone was to blame, it was a selfish, conquest driven war. It caused the disintegration of two great powers on the losing side, while a third on the winning side devolved into civil war followed by a generation of genocide and purges. France, traditionally the greatest power of Europe, won, but paid a terrible price and has never really regained its might. Italy learned nothing and gained little. Britain was the clear winner, but she also lost her position as ruler of the seas, sharing that title awkwardly with Japan and the US in the pacific and France and Italy in the Mediterranean.

So, yes, Britain could have deescalated some of the tension by not engaging in the naval arms race with Germany, but Germany wasn't building a navy for fun. It was trying to gain more colonial influence st the expense of the entente powers.

 Polonius wrote:
The great powers in 1914 all wanted war. None of them were dragged into the war unwillingly, which makes assigning blame a bit silly.

This right here.

However, one place that one could place blame that hasn't been mentioned yet: the Industrialists. Essentially, you have the invention of all kinds of new and interesting things. Machine guns, massive cartridge loading artillery, new rifles, etc. etc. etc. And most of these countries, who have been used to centuries of war as another piece of diplomacy, are somewhat itching to see the new toys in action.


I do think that some of the aftermath in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles was overly heavy-handed and onerous to the German people. Citing German "war crimes" (during a time when such a thing was waaaay more hazy than it is now), France and England especially were out for blood. Of course, they treated Wilson basically the same way they had been treating the Germans for decades: as a silly little brother who doesn't deserve an actual seat at the table. They helped fuel resentment of the West in China, which in turn helped fuel the run to Communism there. They helped piss off the Japanese, and Italians, and so on.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The great powers in 1914 all wanted war. None of them were dragged into the war unwillingly, which makes assigning blame a bit silly.

This right here.

However, one place that one could place blame that hasn't been mentioned yet: the Industrialists. Essentially, you have the invention of all kinds of new and interesting things. Machine guns, massive cartridge loading artillery, new rifles, etc. etc. etc. And most of these countries, who have been used to centuries of war as another piece of diplomacy, are somewhat itching to see the new toys in action.

You can no more blame the industrialists and innovators for starting WWI than you can blame a collection of blacksmiths for the discovery of iron smelting techniques that led to the massive Assyrian expansion. That's not to say that a small border war or rapid repression strategy has been implemented on some small scale without testing new weaponry playing a part in it. But you don't start a massive continental war between the major world powers of the time just so you can test out your new toys.

I do think that some of the aftermath in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles was overly heavy-handed and onerous to the German people. Citing German "war crimes" (during a time when such a thing was waaaay more hazy than it is now), France and England especially were out for blood. Of course, they treated Wilson basically the same way they had been treating the Germans for decades: as a silly little brother who doesn't deserve an actual seat at the table. They helped fuel resentment of the West in China, which in turn helped fuel the run to Communism there. They helped piss off the Japanese, and Italians, and so on.

Didn't Japan get what it wanted? Russia hadn't been an issue in the region since their Naval disaster several years before the war, and they ended up getting to keep the handful of German islands they had seized as their part in the war.

War crimes actually were defined, even codified. It's just that the absolute sovereignty in these matters meant nations could decide whether or not to prosecute that or if it applied to them. Of course the winners are going to drive that home, it's no different in any international conflict even today. Perhaps not to such a great extent, but still true. The reparations for the war crimes claims were a slap on the hand compared to the Nuremburg Trials.

France was out for blood because the majority of the fighting had occurred on their soil, reducing the western part of their territory to wasteland, and of the winners they had borne the heaviest weight. A vengeful attitude from them may not be wise or admirable, but it is understandable.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

Didn't Japan get what it wanted? Russia hadn't been an issue in the region since their Naval disaster several years before the war, and they ended up getting to keep the handful of German islands they had seized as their part in the war.

Maybe. From what reading on the Oriental nations involvement in WW1, both China and Japan bristled at how they were cut out of the negotiations almost entirely. Japan could very well have gotten what it wanted, but the point for them wasn't that they got some land, it was that they were ignored at the table, or not even informed of meeting times until well after the meetings were started. I know of one day's negotiations, the Chinese delegation did not show up until 4 hours into the day's meeting due to being told the wrong time the day before.

Let's not even get started on how the Arab allies were treated after the war.

I mean, beacuse this thread is about the start and not the end.

 Easy E wrote:
Since that fateful day in 1914, Historians have been arguing about "Which Nation started World War I"?

Much of this debate around casuality was fueled by the Treaty of Versailles and the reparations that were asked to be paid. There has probably been more ink spilled on this topic than any other historical topic of the 20th Century. So, now it is your turn Dakka.

Which nation was to blame for the start of the war?

Who started the war has long been known. As in, who lit the fuse to the Balkan powder keg that kicked off the big party



It was a disgruntled Bosnian Serb radical with a .380 ACP chambered FN Model 1910. His name was Gavrilo Princip.


Europe was already on the path to another long overdue war between the empires of the time. Every since the Hundred Years War, the European powers have danced a constant dance to break the balance of power between them, with the rise of Bonaparte being the only real interruption in the "great game". And even he couldn't completely bring his rivals to heel.


World War One was the end result of nearly 700 years of this crap, cumulating with the multi-empire alliances to get around the so-called "piranha principle" and gain an advantage. And all nations in Europe, including the British Empire and French Empire(s)/Republic, had a part to play in the start of the Great War, with no one nation being exclusively at fault. Everyone was chomping at the bit to have a go, and one man with a pocket pistol and an ax to grind, in a regional hot spot, gave the great empires the excuse they needed. It was just a matter of all the dominoes in the chain falling over.


In the end, nobody learned a goddamned thing. Most of the great empires and dynasties fell, either directly or indirectly as a result of the war. And the remaining ones planted the seeds of their own demise with the Treaty of Versailles.


There shouldn't even be a "great debate" to begin with. It's clear what happened, who was at fault, and who all the major players were. The so-called "debate" is just a case of people arguing for the sake of arguing, downplaying their own forefathers role in causing those four years of slaughter, and the amateurish military stupidity on the part of blue bloods unfit to command a latrine detail, much less entire armies on the front lines.