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.

 Paradigm wrote:
The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).

Yes, I know that Versailles included a war guilt clause that stipulated reparation payments. Do you realize that everything you mentioned (war guilt clause, ludicrous reparation payments, being absolutely unable to pay those) equally applies to the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon?

Germany was not the only country to officially take the blame, and not the only one punished to the point of ruination. Relative to their post-war size and economic power, Austria and Hungary were hit even harder than Germany. So I'm kind of curious where this "Germany took all the blame" comes from, as the points presented so far are simply wrong.

 Ketara wrote:
As an academic who specialises in this exact period and subject, there's simply far too much in this thread in terms of information which is accurate and inaccurate for me to respond to, without taking up the rest of the night.

So I'll simply say that a) would be crass, b) inaccurate, and c) just about right.

Spot on, though I'm not wholly opposed to some of A

Also people lets get one thing straight, two things won WW1

A) The Royal Navy
B) The USA

In that order. I have no interest in debating causes but to say America's role was trivial is woefully misguided.

 Allod wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).

Yes, I know that Versailles included a war guilt clause that stipulated reparation payments. Do you realize that everything you mentioned (war guilt clause, ludicrous reparation payments, being absolutely unable to pay those) equally applies to the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon?

Germany was not the only country to officially take the blame, and not the only one punished to the point of ruination. Relative to their post-war size and economic power, Austria and Hungary were hit even harder than Germany. So I'm kind of curious where this "Germany took all the blame" comes from, as the points presented so far are simply wrong.

Like I say, I recognise other nations were also implicated. The fact remains that, in the eyes of history today and the Allies in 1918, German is and was regarded as the primary aggressor. It's not some kind of modern revisionism or lack of information that makes people believe it, it's the fact that, right from 1918, the western world at large has regarded Germany as the prime instigator, aggressor and instigator of the conflict. They are forever remembered as the ones to blame, whether they were or not.

As the saying goes, history is written by the winners.

 Paradigm wrote:
The fact remains that, in the eyes of history today and the Allies in 1918, German is and was regarded as the primary aggressor. It's not some kind of modern revisionism or lack of information that makes people believe it, it's the fact that, right from 1918, the western world at large has regarded Germany as the prime instigator, aggressor and instigator of the conflict. They are forever remembered as the ones to blame, whether they were or not.

"In the eyes of history today" maybe was true when "Guns of August" was published, but that has been a while ago. And the treaties the allies penned do neither name nor imply a "primary aggressor".

Anyway, I wasn't contesting what e.g. the average Brit, today or back then, thought about the question of guilt, but the "fact" that Germany took all or even most of the blame in tangible terms. This wasn't the case.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Allod wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.

St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?

The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).

I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.

Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view. I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much. And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side. The First World War had huge consequences for all those countries, with effects that last until today. They all had to pay huge reparations and they all lost a lot of territory. It also caused all those nations to side with the nazis in WW2. The first World War was not a mainly German affair, Austria is almost equal to blame. And of course the Allied powers were far from innocent themselves. Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.

An excerpt for discussion:-

Asquith= British Prime Minister.
Lichnowski=German Ambassador to Britain
August 4th:- Declaration of War by Great Britain

'Dreadnought' by Robert Massie, The setting is Great Britain, August 1st, 1914 wrote:

Asquith's day had begun when, while he was still at breakfast, Lichnowski was announced. "He was very emotional," Asquith recorded, "and implored me not to side with France. He said that Germany, with her Army cut in two between France and Russia, was far more likely to be crushed than France. He was very agitated, the poor man, and wept. I told him that we had no desire to intervene and that it rested largely with Germany to make intervention impossible if she would 1) not invade Belgium and 2) not send her fleet into the Channel to attack the unprotected north coast of France......

There were two cabinet meetings on Sunday 2nd August, from eleven A.M. to two P.M., and again from six thirty P.M. to eight thirty P.M. At the second, the majority of the Cabinet agreed that if Belgian neutrality was violated AND Belgium resisted, Britain would intervene'. (emphasis mine)

In other words, had the Belgians sided with Germany or the Germans not invaded Belgium, and the German Fleet remained out of the Channel, Britain would not have entered the war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Allod wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.

St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?

The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).

I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.

Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view. I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much. And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side. The First World War had huge consequences for all those countries, with effects that last until today. They all had to pay huge reparations and they all lost a lot of territory. It also caused all those nations to side with the nazis in WW2. The first World War was not a mainly German affair, Austria is almost equal to blame. And of course the Allied powers were far from innocent themselves. Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.

At no point did I state that Germany was the sole aggressor, and I am well aware that pretty much every nation involved had some impact on the war beginning, directly or otherwise. France and Britain's imperialism that prompted the Germans into competition, The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's attempts to prop up floundering empires caused a lot of tension, Nicholas II of Russia was ready for a war he hoped would restore the people's flagging faith in him.

What I did say was that, in purely physical, military terms, most of the escalation of the conflict was down to Germany. Their decision to go west into Belgium brought Britain into the war (as the piece quoted above shows- No invasion and Britain, along with her empire, would have stayed out). No one is trying to excuse any other nation of blame, but I do think that stating Germany as the most significant escalator of the war is a fair assessment given their role in taking the conflict from a European one to an international one.

 EmilCrane wrote:


Also people lets get one thing straight, two things won WW1

A) The Royal Navy
B) The USA

In that order. I have no interest in debating causes but to say America's role was trivial is woefully misguided.

It was trivial compared to the French Army's role in the war.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

It was trivial compared to the French Army's role in the war.

France had an army in the war?



All joking aside, while our involvement was relatively brief, it cannot go understated that we did play a significant role at the end of the war. We came in with typical American Bravado, and forced things to move along. Many of the non-American military commanders hated or disliked us, because we didn't follow the "trend" and actually reverted tactics back to what they were in 1914-15, but we had the manpower to handle that sort of insanity.

I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt

French soldiers actually fought really well and were stubborn enough to hold off the German Army hundreds of times, it's just that half the time their commanders had about as much command ability as a beret and a baguette stuck to a target dummy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moral of the story, the French Army does best when lead by a non-Frenchman or a woman.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

It was trivial compared to the French Army's role in the war.

France had an army in the war?

All joking aside, while our involvement was relatively brief, it cannot go understated that we did play a significant role at the end of the war. We came in with typical American Bravado, and forced things to move along. Many of the non-American military commanders hated or disliked us, because we didn't follow the "trend" and actually reverted tactics back to what they were in 1914-15, but we had the manpower to handle that sort of insanity.

The French did have an army, but it went on strike after the stockpile of white flags ran out

The US' role in the 1st World War may have been small, but it was very decisive. The US entry into the war gave the Allies the boost they needed to win. The huge manpower reserves of the US could not be matched by the Central Powers.

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt

And the French are also responsible for WW2 , because they had to act like they had won the war and be absolute dicks to Germany, despite the other Allies telling them that it would be bad and bite them in the ass later on. Oh la la France

Yeah America helped mop up the war, but without the French Army stubbornly fighting for 3 years, there would have been no war left for America to "save the day" with.

France lost something like 27% of its men aged 18-30 in the war. The Hundred Days Offensive was paltry compared to that.

France gets a lot of flak for having a distinctly less-than-stellar showing in the Second World War, but they did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Great War. They and the Brits held out for three years, before the Americans showed up to drive the nail in Germany's coffin. Truthfully, apart from the Franco-Prussian War and WWII, French military history shows them to be very adept at kicking other people's hoops.

The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.

The war was won in factories and in the north sea.

Another very important thing people are missing about the war (or maybe I have missed it) but considering the scale of the war civilians where relatively safe from harm for the most part. In contrast to almost all other wars after it where civilians deaths as a direct result of the war was horrifically high.

Although many died from other war related means this is in huge contrast to the second world war for example. I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers, unlike newer "less offensive" wars that where defined by the slaughter of civilians. People arent wanting to party about WW1, they just think that due remembrance should be given.


Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.

 EmilCrane wrote:
The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.

The war was won in factories and in the north sea.

Well, you could argue most wars are won in the factories.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.

The war was won in factories and in the north sea.

Well, you could argue most wars are won in the factories.

They all are. Logistics wins wars. You can have the best trained men in the world, but if you give them sticks and throw them up against a bunch of untrained guys with guns...

Well look at the Satsuma Rebellion...

 Swastakowey wrote:



Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.

I think it depends on the propaganda used to get the soldiers to fight. Most WWI soldiers were conscripts fighting to uphold empires that were oppressing the masses. Your average person really didn't care to die for those reasons. When Franz Ferdenand was Assassinated, most people really didn't care, only through a dedicated campaign were they able to get the average people riled up, and even then not so much.

You can see the difference in motivation in WW2.

I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers,

I find that pretty offensive actually. Those soldiers were for the most part 100% conscripts AKA slaves, forced to fight for the egos of a few members of royal families. Seriously, these were basically armies of toy soldiers fielded by rich brats. Except that these were real people.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view.

It depends on how you define blame. I clarified in my first post on the subject (Page 3 of thread I believe, near the top) that I was defining "who started the war" as who had the largest hand in escalating a small regional conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia into a global conflict. In that sense, Germany most definitely holds the largest share, as they purposefully took action to orchestrate a wide reaching war. Not a global one per se, but one that would encompass most of Europe via is two major rivals, Russia and France.

I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much.

The reason is because Austria-Hungary was mixed in its opinions on how continue. Many major officials in the government (including the Monarch) didn't want to fight a war without German support. While Hungary would refuse to simple back down outright, the conflict could have been contained regionally if Germany hadn't taken a stance of goading everyone on to start a larger conflict.

And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side.

The Ottoman's were the Facist Italy of WWI. They were there, but they're role was limited both in the war and in starting it.

Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.

Like I said. I think Versailles was too harsh, as was the destruction of Austria-Hungrary (and we're dealing with that whole Israel thing after all), but it's far from wrong to say Germany started the war.

Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.

Not really to be honest. Especially in France and Russia the mutinies were about the terrible conditions of the conflict, not a completely alien thing prior to WWI, though standing armies made it far less frequent. It really says more about the relative weakness of the national governments of the countries than about the people or the war itself. Russia and France internally were very weak, especially Russia, and the war stretched that weakness like a rubber band and snapped it.

France and Britain's imperialism that prompted the Germans into competition, The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's attempts to prop up floundering empires caused a lot of tension, Nicholas II of Russia was ready for a war he hoped would restore the people's flagging faith in him.

The pointing fingers "we only did it because you did" game can go back centuries, making it kind of pointless to the application of something like Just War Theory (my thought process here).

Anyway, I wasn't contesting what e.g. the average Brit, today or back then, thought about the question of guilt, but the "fact" that Germany took all or even most of the blame in tangible terms. This wasn't the case.

WWII probably clouds the issue abit, as we happily lay a lot of blame on Versailles for helping to lead that conflict. It's also though worth pointing out that it's largely the German narrative after the war and until about the late 50's that they were blamed by everyone for the war, and even today remains a popular narrative. Probably is worth reexamining that idea. Germany got dumped on, but then again, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans got dismantled entirely. In that sense, they probably got off pretty lightly XD

Versailles though I think still remains a very bad treaty. In the culture of the time, it ignored the 'it takes two to tango' aspect of war, pushing harsh military and economic punishments on an utterly crippled Germany that could never cope with its demands. Throw in the wounding of national pride in an age where national pride meant a lot, and you have a situation where the end of the war could have been handled with a little more tact.

The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.

I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame. That got old back in the Roaring 20's.

 Easy E wrote:
The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.

Lots of fairly established things are ongoing academic debates. Throw in historical debates deeply connected to politics (which WWI most definitely is) and see them drag on on for decades in the dumbest ways. There're still people throwing Ordinance Department histories around and saying McNair killed US troops by not producing the M27, in spite of how we know now that those histories are filled with lies. People are still debating whether Silas Dean was a traitor for god's sake. Even ignoring the very compelling story that the actual traitor framed and assassinated him, there's abundant evidence to prove Silas Dean didn't betray his country.

EDIT: As a further example, I read a paper from an expert on German politics who argued that the plan of the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler and seize control of the German government was always doomed to fail, which is probably true, but the weird part is when this expert started arguing Hermann Goring would take over, purge the SS from government, and sue for peace, which shows a remarkable lack of knowledge as to the character of Goring and Himmler for an expert to have.

Being an expert does not make one infalliable. History is a massive field, where it can be decades for information in a field to reach the wider community. WWI is debated across the entire planet. Thousands of pages are produced on it every year. Even experts in the field can find themselves devoid of knowledge of the findings of other experts just because there's so many of them in separate unconnected circles (with added language barriers).

I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame.

One, there are people who know. I've been pointing it out for pages now. You can accept the evidence (which is abundant) that Germany was the only nation involved that took purposeful action to create a European war, the standard that I personally feel is sufficient to assign them the lion's share of blame for the immediate events leading to the war, or not. That has nothing to do with who knows what.

It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.

The bar fight quote was great. Reminded me how little i actually understand about what was going on during world war 1. Honestly, what i recall from high school about the was, there were trenches, there was mustard gas, and "Merica" kicked ass.

 LordofHats wrote:

It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.

I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rotary wrote:
The bar fight quote was great. Reminded me how little i actually understand about what was going on during world war 1. Honestly, what i recall from high school about the was, there were trenches, there was mustard gas, and "Merica" kicked ass.

Honestly man, since leaving school, I have discovered on my own, that WW1 is probably the most fascinating "modern" conflict of all to study. The politics, military tactics/strategies, and even social life were all so greatly affected through the conflict that I absolutely love reading about it... I guess you could say that I'm a bit of a hipster when it comes to WW1 history

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts

Well Russia was never going to stand there and let Austria attack Serbia. Tsar Nicholas while woefully incompetent for his duties, was at his heart a good man who took action because he honestly thought it was the right thing to do. He wanted peace (which is why he organized the Hague Conference) but he wasn't going to stand by a let Austria attack Serbia. When Austria would have invaded, Russia would have declared war, Germany would have declared war on Russia, and France would have declared war on Germany and Austria.

No matter how it spins, a war in Serbia was never going to stay regional. However, the war could have been prevented entirely by Germany. Had they simple gone up to Austria and slapped it across the face saying "Stop being stupid and man up damnit. You really want to fight a war on two fronts against Russia and France? I know I don't!" The answer to which is definitively no. It's highly unlikely that a war would have started in 1914 without Germany backing Austria-Hungary. Had Germany taken a stand, the situation would have been extremely tense but likely ended without a war. Whole thing might have even worked itself out in time, cause Serbia was never going to last as a state even with Russia backing it.

My view on the first world war

C.
1. It told us that 'butterfly effect' exists. but not without series of powerplays between higher ups and bluebloods. why mess with Balkans if Eastern Asia was ripe for the taking? It's not just about an infuriated teen who joined a serbian scion (or the said ordo fraternitus in question itself) can bring an entire world down by just splling a Habsburg blueblood (the clan that has been subjected to the hate for many generations by many races living in and around Balkans).
2. The war answer the question whether should an entire Europe belonged to a few giants (Empires) where few clans bossing around numerous tribals, or should Europe composed of many many many many many small nations representing every 'european races'--big or small, ? It is when the debates of of 'Imperialism VS Nationalism' aren't settled properly (nor the 'mediator' to settle the said dispuites exists yet...) Europe changed by this war. and by the end of this war. the 'Nationalism' ideology won. the effect is very profound even among the winners. Independency movements seen in French and British colonies began AFTER the first world war. and later finalized by the end of second worldwar.
Also the war had made French Revolutionary dreams a reality. It finalized what Napoleon Bonaparte began 100 years ago.
3. The War not only destroyed many empires (Germany, Austria, and Ottoman). it reformed one... Russia, and created two more... the United States of America, and Imperium Iaponia. Europe had been weakened by the end of it.
and
4. It make 'World Government' neccessity. the 'League of Nations' (and later the United Nations) are the direct results of this war.

Being Siamese myself. The war is a gamble in European casino. picking wrong side and an entire nation is doomed, choosing right side only yields a small prize. It doesn't make Siam a new global player (as its status was (and still) no greater than Latin America), the only spoils of war were renegotiations of many unequal treaties previously ratified in Victorian era.
The war... however, wasn't without any real change to Siam.
1. Industrialization effort kickoff. the Crown-own 'Siam Cement Group' was established, Initially intended to replace cement/concrete imports, it soon found out that the world demand was far greater than domestic ones.
2. Profound military changes. Siamese (late) entry to the war introduced new things to its armed forces. (usually the same thing seen elsewhere)
- Motorized warfare. including the experimental armored car created 'in house', and the imports of armored vehicles (mostly from Britain, the first 'tanks' shown up in 1930,)
- Helmets. Belgian-made Adrian helmet was chosen for Royal Siamese Armed Forces, replaced dress cap and pith helmets as fieldgear.
- Machine gun. Browning M1917 has been purchased in large numbers following the war.
- Air Force, Siam has an official 'Air Force' before the United States of America did. and thus many remote cities previously not accessed by rails have military airfields. and there were times the RSAF made 'in-house' aircraft (though engines, gauges and weapons were all imported, wooden frames and canvas was domestically made and engine installed where it should be.

For anyone that hasn't seen it, there was a docudrama on BBC2 (I think) over the last couple of weeks called 37 Days, with the final part next week, that covers the build-up to war. While parts are slightly embellished, it's worth a watch for anyone into this period. It also demonstrates rather nicely how easily Germany could have stopped/started the war.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts

Well Russia was never going to stand there and let Austria attack Serbia. Tsar Nicholas while woefully incompetent for his duties, was at his heart a good man who took action because he honestly thought it was the right thing to do. He wanted peace (which is why he organized the Hague Conference) but he wasn't going to stand by a let Austria attack Serbia. When Austria would have invaded, Russia would have declared war, Germany would have declared war on Russia, and France would have declared war on Germany and Austria.

No matter how it spins, a war in Serbia was never going to stay regional. However, the war could have been prevented entirely by Germany. Had they simple gone up to Austria and slapped it across the face saying "Stop being stupid and man up damnit. You really want to fight a war on two fronts against Russia and France? I know I don't!" The answer to which is definitively no. It's highly unlikely that a war would have started in 1914 without Germany backing Austria-Hungary. Had Germany taken a stand, the situation would have been extremely tense but likely ended without a war. Whole thing might have even worked itself out in time, cause Serbia was never going to last as a state even with Russia backing it.

So, your argument is tha tthe "blank check" is what causes German blame, yet it was Austria-Hungary that actually took the action. By your own reasoning, wouldn't the war than be the fault of Austro-Hungary? They were hell bent on using this opportunity to put an end to Serbian belligerence despite Russia's pro-Serbian/pan-slav stance?

There is pretty compelling evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with Russia based on the infamous Willy and Nicky telegraphs/letters. Therefore, it is disingenous to believe that theGreat War was all a German plot to destabilize the European Status Quo and that they were actively agitating for the war.

Let's not forget, that Austro-Hungary was still considered a Great Power at the time. No matter what argument you make, there are plenty of scholars (and evidence) who can point to how it was Russia's fault, France's fault, heck even Britain's fault. The only thing we can agree on is that all the Nations involved felt like they had a vital interest in the actions they took.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers,

I find that pretty offensive actually. Those soldiers were for the most part 100% conscripts AKA slaves, forced to fight for the egos of a few members of royal families. Seriously, these were basically armies of toy soldiers fielded by rich brats. Except that these were real people.

Not exactly true for the early part of the war. Kitchener's Army was mostly volunteers and not conscripts. The initial enthusiasm for the war was at every level of society. This was in all the European nations. However, I'm not as sure about the Eastern Fronts, but he Western Front countries the war was greeted with enthusiasm by the majority of the population.

 Easy E wrote:


So, your argument is tha tthe "blank check" is what causes German blame, yet it was Austria-Hungary that actually took the action. By your own reasoning, wouldn't the war than be the fault of Austro-Hungary?

Read my earlier posts in the thread. Germany purposely sabotaged attempts by Britain to mediate the dispute. They agitated Russia and France hoping one of the two would attack first. They egged Austria on by promising support in the 'upcoming' war. Heads of state in Germany were disappointed when it was first reported to them that Serbia had accepted the Ultimatum and then excited when they learned Serbia rejected a single point which they then used to ensure Austria remained dedicated to the conflict. They refused a request by Tsar Nicholas to negotiate, and wouldn't sit down with France either.

Internally, Germany took numerous actions to make the war happen and they wanted the war to happen. While there were many in Austria who wanted the war, there were also many who refused to support it without German support, including the monarch. Obviously that was never an issue as Germany was fully behind the war and unlike Austria knew and wanted a European conflict.

You can't spend the month leading to a war, orchestrating that war and goading everyone else into it, and then say after the fact that it totally wasn't you fault. Really, read up on the July Crisis.

They were hell bent on using this opportunity to put an end to Serbian belligerence despite Russia's pro-Serbian/pan-slav stance?

They didn't really give a damn about Serbia or Austria really. It was just a convenient excuse for them to pursue their own ends. EDIT: Namely, they feared the military build up in Tsarist Russia, and wanted to cripple Russia's power. France became a necessary target as well because of their alliance.

There is pretty compelling evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with Russia based on the infamous Willy and Nicky telegraphs/letters

Uh, Wilhelm was lying in those letters as per internal correspondence in Germany. Initially Wilhelm indeed didn't want war (ironic as his removal of Bismark from power is what prompted the alliance of France and Russia) and he said as much in his diary and a few letters, but Wilhelm held very little power in Germany. He lost almost all of it after the Daily Telegraph incident and Germany was nominally controlled by the military and a few state heads. Eventually Wilhelm gave in and supported the push for war, taking advice from his advisors on how to keep members of his family in other countries in the dark on exactly what was going on in Germany.

Therefore, it is disingenous to believe that theGreat War was all a German plot to destabilize the European Status Quo and that they were actively agitating for the war.

Plot? I wouldn't describe it as such. I'm simply speaking that in the immediate events that led to the war, Germany did cause it. Saying they didn't is ignorant of reality. In a more grand aspect looking at European history, a lot of things caused WWI (like the removal of Bismark, the Boxer Rebellion, the Boer Wars, etc). Nicholas was as I said earlier an inept leader. A better head in Russia could have prevented Austria taking over Bosnia, preventing Serbia from coming into conflict with them at all. The failure of the Hague Conference to slow the arms race (though I must point out Germany was one of the most unhelpful countries there).

It's just that WWI really didn't have to happen. Had Germany not taken the stance it did, it might have never happened. Everyone gets blame, but Germany's actions were particularly egregious. The imperialist systems of politics created the environment that sparked WWI, those systems in themselves didn't make the war happen. Germany did a lot more than other countries to start WWI and they did so knowingly. I can't accept the idea that everyone was equally guilty in starting the war. It's just not true.

The only thing we can agree on is that all the Nations involved felt like they had a vital interest in the actions they took.

And yet, it's telling only one had 0 interest in negotiation; Germany. Nicholas and Serbia offered to negotiate, Britain offered mediation, and France was willing to sit back and not pick a fight which is why they pulled their army back from the German border hoping to show they didn't want a war. None of those things mattered because Germany was the sole country hell bent on fight a war.

Germany as a state had simply slipped into a position where it was being ruled by the hardest of nationalists and Wilhelm did much in his early rule to cripple any ability to reform German foreign policy.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Moral of the story, the French Army does best when lead by a non-Frenchman or a woman.

Is Napoleon that non-Frenchman ?