Switch Theme:

The Great Debate of the 20th Century?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

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?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The Treaty of Versailles brought around the END of WWI, so not sure how discussing the end can clarify who started it, but it was essentially Austria-Hungary.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Well, due to the toll of Repariations, many of the Historians in Europe made finding out who "started" the war into a cottage industry. It was an attempt to prove who should and should not pay reparations.

If you recall, the treaty mostly assigned the blame to Germany. However, Historians have argued that other parties bore the brunt of said responsibility leading up to the war by acting/not acting in certain ways.

I have seen cases made about all parties involved being the "real" nation/combination of nations that caused the Great War.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

From my readings in recent text books, the current weight of opinion is that Germany and the Kaiser must carry the most blame for causing the war.

1. The German naval build-up was an existential challenge to the UK. It pushed Britain out of her traditional approach to maintaining a balance among the Great Powers of Europe into the arms of France.

2. Germany basically wrote a blank cheque of military support for Austro-Hungary after the assassination of the Archduke. This emboldened the Austro-Hungarians to bear down far too hard on the Serbs. This dragged Russia, then France and the UK into the frame via the various treaties, and thereby turned a diplomatic crisis into a major war.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Thats not the great debate of the 20th Century. The great debtat of the 20th Century was "Less Filling" vs. "Tastes Great!" (I voted "tastes like horse pee")

To this issue, they were all responsible. All the major powers wanted to go to war or were too bullheaded to stop.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

 Kilkrazy wrote:


2. Germany basically wrote a blank cheque of military support for Austro-Hungary after the assassination of the Archduke. This emboldened the Austro-Hungarians to bear down far too hard on the Serbs. This dragged Russia, then France and the UK into the frame via the various treaties, and thereby turned a diplomatic crisis into a major war.


This is the key for me. Germany basically telling Austo-Hungary that they'd back them in any course of action was the push that AH needed to start the war; Germany could have withdrawn support, and with AH in no position to challenge Russia in 1914 they'd have been forced to back down.

There's also a strong case to be made that the German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and especially Chief of Staff Von Moltke were more than happy to actively encourage a war that they'd then be 'dragged' into, as that would give them the excuse to move into France, which they did almost immediately when the war broke out, before even considering helping out the Austro-Hungarians.

What I particularly disagree with is the argument that's emerged that Britain shares equal responsibility because we weren't forced to pledge support to Belgium but did anyway; Going to war to protect the independence of a smaller nation against invasion is exactly what we did with Poland in 1939, yet you don't see many people claiming we're responsible for WW2 because the benefit of hindsight proves that fighting the Nazis was the morally right thing to do. At the time though, the justification was entirely the same.

 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Kilkrazy wrote:
From my readings in recent text books, the current weight of opinion is that Germany and the Kaiser must carry the most blame for causing the war.

1. The German naval build-up was an existential challenge to the UK. It pushed Britain out of her traditional approach to maintaining a balance among the Great Powers of Europe into the arms of France.

That is Britain's fault, not Germany's. Britain could have just carried on as if nothing happened. Britain decided Germany was a threat to its interests (read: unchallenged colonial hegemony) and decided to act on it. Had they not done that, we would not have gotten WW1.
Germany can not be blamed for wanting its place in the sun next to Britain and France. The blame falls on Britain and France for refusing to acknowledge German interests.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
2. Germany basically wrote a blank cheque of military support for Austro-Hungary after the assassination of the Archduke. This emboldened the Austro-Hungarians to bear down far too hard on the Serbs. This dragged Russia, then France and the UK into the frame via the various treaties, and thereby turned a diplomatic crisis into a major war.

Again, that is not really the fault of the Germans more than it is the fault of the Russians, French and British. Everyone made treaties, but for some reason Germany doing the same is bad? If any blame can be put here it falls on the Austro-Hungarians and the Serbs. The Serbs for their refusal to hand over Franz Ferdinand's killer, and the Austrians for their decision to go to war over it. Of course, neither of them would have been so bold without their ally, but one side is not more or less to blame here than the other.

Overall, I think that the causes of wars are far too complex to shift the blame solely to one side or the other. A Dutch saying goes 'Where two fight, two are to blame.' I think that is very true, for WW1 as much as for any conflict in history. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Russia, France and Britain are all guilty of causing the war and therefore share the blame equally, in my opinion.

 Paradigm wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:


2. Germany basically wrote a blank cheque of military support for Austro-Hungary after the assassination of the Archduke. This emboldened the Austro-Hungarians to bear down far too hard on the Serbs. This dragged Russia, then France and the UK into the frame via the various treaties, and thereby turned a diplomatic crisis into a major war.


This is the key for me. Germany basically telling Austo-Hungary that they'd back them in any course of action was the push that AH needed to start the war; Germany could have withdrawn support, and with AH in no position to challenge Russia in 1914 they'd have been forced to back down.

And Serbia would have never been bold enough to challenge Austria-Hungary if Russia had not told them they'd back them. Russia could have withdrawn support, and with Serbia in no position to challenge Austria in 1914 they'd have been forced to back down.
And Russia would never have been bold enough to challenge Austria and Germany if France hadn't supported Russia...

There's also a strong case to be made that the German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and especially Chief of Staff Von Moltke were more than happy to actively encourage a war that they'd then be 'dragged' into, as that would give them the excuse to move into France, which they did almost immediately when the war broke out, before even considering helping out the Austro-Hungarians.

 Paradigm wrote:
What I particularly disagree with is the argument that's emerged that Britain shares equal responsibility because we weren't forced to pledge support to Belgium but did anyway; Going to war to protect the independence of a smaller nation against invasion is exactly what we did with Poland in 1939, yet you don't see many people claiming we're responsible for WW2 because the benefit of hindsight proves that fighting the Nazis was the morally right thing to do. At the time though, the justification was entirely the same.

Britain is entirely responsible for WW2. WW2 was caused in a large part by the undeserved bad treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. Had Britain never agreed on that abominable treaty, Hitler likely would have never gotten into politics, he would never have been elected Chancellor and WW2 would have never happened.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 16:37:53


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I would actually put less blame on Russia. Their ally by treaty was outright attacked. One could argue they should not have made treaties...while I disagree I can understand the argument.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Frazzled wrote:
To this issue, they were all responsible. All the major powers wanted to go to war or were too bullheaded to stop.
Yeah. Trying to assign blame, or even majority blame, to on country is oversimplifying things.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Frazzled wrote:
I would actually put less blame on Russia. Their ally by treaty was outright attacked. One could argue they should not have made treaties...while I disagree I can understand the argument.

Yeah, you can't blame Russia for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Austria, but why would you then blame Germany for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Russia? All great powers were doing the same thing. They all were hypocritical bastards, much like great powers still are today.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
I would actually put less blame on Russia. Their ally by treaty was outright attacked. One could argue they should not have made treaties...while I disagree I can understand the argument.

Yeah, you can't blame Russia for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Austria, but why would you then blame Germany for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Russia? All great powers were doing the same thing. They all were hypocritical bastards, much like great powers still are today.


The difference being that Germany actively encouraged Austria to attack Serbia/Russia and then used that as an excuse to launch a war of aggression against France. Not to mention that the result of Russia not coming to aid Serbia is that Serbia gets annihilated by the Austro-Hungarian empire and loses any change it had at self-determination.

There's no getting away from the fact that both the Germans and Austrians launched aggressive wars with the aim of taking over territory and crushing opposition respectively. Russia and Britain weren't looking to expand their territories or conquer anyone, quite the opposite in fact.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

 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?


Is this supposed to be about which nation started WW2 or WW1?

If it's WW1, there's no one nation to blame in my opinion. The spider-web of treaties and alliances existing at that time diffuses such and, in my opinion, is the real cause. If it's WW2, there's a guy with a funny little moustache I'd nominate as villain numero uno.

Back to my armchair.
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

Conrad von Hotzendorf.

On no fewer than thirteen times in 1914 he urged Franz Joseph to invade Serbia "just because". And this was *before* Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. After the assassination, he drew up a list of demands to the Serbian government that were so odious, Serbia would have no choice but to refuse to meet them, thereby justifying the invasion. Serbia threw a curveball by agreeing to all but one of the demands, and asking if the last demand could maybe be put before a council of European nations to discuss before anything was decided. When faced with Serbia virtually rolling over and capitulating, Conrad convinced Franz Joseph to declare war anyway, "just because".

If the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff hadn't had a ten-mile erection for war with Serbia, cooler heads may have prevailed and the war might've been avoided.

Was Germany responsible for the war? No.
Was Germany responsible for Britain's entry into the war? Hells yes!

If Germany had maybe decided to not invade Belgium on it's way into France, Britain would not have had cause to declare war. German naval buildup is cited as an existential challenge to Britain, but when you look at the facts, the German High Seas fleet (the overwhelming bulk of their total surface warships) wasn't a match for just the British Grand fleet (the bulk of their surface warships in the North Atlantic). Germany had been kicked out of the Pacific by the end of 1915, a year before Jutland (where the Germans were outnumbered nearly 2 to 1). The German navy was a bit of puffery so that the Kaiser could feel like Germany was a global superpower. It was always going to lose the penis-measuring contest with Britain, because British naval power was a thing dating back centuries, and Germany had existed as a country for less than fifty years.

If Germany had stayed out of Belgium, Britain would have had a harder time justifying getting involved in the war, and it would've had a harder time selling the war to the average Tommy on the street, who is watching the French army getting chewed up and spat out in the newsreels. "Your country needs you to go to France and die by the tens of thousands because the Kaiser built some ships, yo" isn't going to do much for enlistment. It certainly isn't a patch on "fighting to keep small nations free" (that sarcastic laughter you hear right now is the Irish).

Russia also bears a bit of blame. They were mobilizing their army (and claiming they were just "pre-mobilizing"... whatever that means) days before Serbia had even responded to Austria's ultimatum. Before Austria, before Germany (which did promise support of Austria, but the Kaiser personally believed the war wouldn't happen and that Serbia would back down... his generals felt differently though), Russia was moving troops around and getting ready to throw down in the Balkans. Russia needed to show off its military might and defend it's claims to being the "protector of the Slavic people", so if there was a war in Serbia, Russia was going to show up, no matter what. Of course, maybe wait until Serbia decides to give Austria the finger before you mobilize your army, guys? Because the largest land army in the world mobilizing on the eastern border of Germany and Austro-Hungary is going to make those guys think "oh crap, gak is about to get real". Maybe you're doing it to intimidate them. Largest army in the world, after all. Or maybe you're doing it because you know that, logistically, your army can't compete with those other guys who have modernized and worked out supply and transport kinks and you need the extra couple of days to get your guys in the field.

Or maybe, Russia knew what kind of man Conrad von Hotzendorf was, and they knew he wasn't going to take Serbia's "we surrender, please don't kill us" as an answer.

Because it all comes back to him. If Germany hadn't given Austria the "blank check" of military support, Conrad would have *still* urged Franz Joseph to go to war with Serbia, because he'd done it time and time and time and time again. Remember: THIRTEEN times in the first half of 1914 alone.

So, you may be wondering, why didn't Franz Joseph take Conrad up on the "war with Serbia" thing earlier? Well, there was this guy hanging around the palace who kept telling Franz Joseph what a horrible, horrible, stupid idea war with Serbia would be.

That was Franz Ferdinand.

The guy who got assassinated.

The man who kept Conrad von Hotzendorf's war boner in check was the same guy who got shot and started the crisis in the first place.

Ain't life funny sometimes?

Oh, but while we are on the subject of the assassination, there is someone else we can blame for World War One!

No, not Gavrilo Princip. He was just a triggerman. He was a goofball fanatic in a group of goofball fanatics who didn't have a serious chance of killing the Archduke. Well, until they got some unexpected (and unintentional) help from a bloke named Oskar Potiorek.

He was the guy in charge of security for Franz Ferdinand's trip to Sarajevo. He was even in the car with Franz Ferdinand when he was shot. He was the guy who thought that, after avoiding one half-assed assassination attempt that day, it would be cool to continue driving around a city full of people who intensely disliked the Archduke (who was kind of an archdouche) on an unfamiliar route, in an open-topped car, in broad daylight.

We all know what happened next.

So yeah, Conrad von Hotzendorf started World War One, but if Oskar Potiorek hadn't dropped the ball so hard on security (you had one job, Oskar) he wouldn't have had the opportunity to start a fight with the entire western world, because Franz would've been alive to talk his uncle out of listening to Conrad (again).

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Kilkrazy wrote:

2. Germany basically wrote a blank cheque of military support for Austro-Hungary after the assassination of the Archduke. This emboldened the Austro-Hungarians to bear down far too hard on the Serbs. This dragged Russia, then France and the UK into the frame via the various treaties, and thereby turned a diplomatic crisis into a major war.


The endless problem with assigning blame is that everything could have been different if anything had been different. Austria-Hungry used a significant wronging to intentionally provoke the war and probably wouldn't have without Germany's backing, but had they just cashed the check as Germany intended instead of waiting a month it probably would have been far less of an issue. By the same token, Germany's check probably would have been withdrawn had Wilhelm not decided to go on vacation after signing it so...
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Pretty much everyone is at fault, most every power involved, at least on the continent, welcomed the conflict in one way or another, and they *all* were intending on launching was of aggression and territorial expansion and everyone expected this war to happen at some point.

Austria-Hungary wanted to expand further and to punish the Serbs. Russia was rapidly modernizing and wanted to protect and expand her political hegemony in the Balkans and distract from internal issues (and potentially gain at the Ottoman's expense if they entered), Germany wanted to cut the legs out from Russia before she could achieve superpower status, and France wanted to do the same to Germany.

Just about everyone wanted this war, and they all were seeing conquest and expansion in the cards, all of them were thinking "offensive" actions, we just view the allied powers as fighting defensive wars because...well, their opening offensive actions were crushed almost immediately.

But ultimately, the probably Austro-Hungarians bear the brunt of it, for rather obvious reasons, though largely only by dint of being first. Germany, Russia, and France are all pretty guilty on their own rights.

Among the great continental powers, any concept that one side or one nation was hoping to avoid war or was purely fighting defensively is absurd, they all wanted it. EDIT: though obviously none wanted what eventually came to pass or even necessarily wanted to fight everyone they ended up fighting.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 17:32:00


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






The French, specifically Napoleon III for bungling the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.

Von Moltke the Elder was right, The Prussians should have occupied France and erased the country. That would have stopped WWI

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 17:14:44


 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Paradigm wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
I would actually put less blame on Russia. Their ally by treaty was outright attacked. One could argue they should not have made treaties...while I disagree I can understand the argument.

Yeah, you can't blame Russia for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Austria, but why would you then blame Germany for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Russia? All great powers were doing the same thing. They all were hypocritical bastards, much like great powers still are today.


The difference being that Germany actively encouraged Austria to attack Serbia/Russia and then used that as an excuse to launch a war of aggression against France.
Not really. Germany did not want war with France, at least not war with France and Russia at the same time. Their diplomats were pretty desperate in the days leading up to the war to get France not to support Russia. And before that the Kaiser had been trying really hard to convince his cousin the Tsar not to support Serbia. Germany did not want war with France any more than France wanted war with Germany. Which is to say that all of them were quite eager to come to blows with the other, just on terms that favoured them. Saying that Germany's war against France was a war of aggression is pretty ridiculous. Germany attacked France to defend itself because France was mobilising its troops to attack Germany in the rear while they fought Russia. Germany did not want war with France any more than France wanted war with Germany (which is to say that both were quite eager to have war with each other, just on terms that favoured them).

 Paradigm wrote:
Not to mention that the result of Russia not coming to aid Serbia is that Serbia gets annihilated by the Austro-Hungarian empire and loses any change it had at self-determination.

There's no getting away from the fact that both the Germans and Austrians launched aggressive wars with the aim of taking over territory and crushing opposition respectively. Russia and Britain weren't looking to expand their territories or conquer anyone, quite the opposite in fact.
No, the result would have been that Serbia would have conceded to Austrian demands, hand over suspected Black Hand members and withdraw its activities in Bosnia. The Serbs weren't stupid. They knew they did not stand a chance against Austria-Hungary. If they had not been confident that Russia would back them up, they would have never challenged Austria-Hungary and Austria-Hungary would not have had a reason to declare war on Serbia.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 17:18:47


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

To be clear, this thread is about the Great War's origins.

Where is Ketara?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 17:31:00


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Paradigm wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
I would actually put less blame on Russia. Their ally by treaty was outright attacked. One could argue they should not have made treaties...while I disagree I can understand the argument.

Yeah, you can't blame Russia for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Austria, but why would you then blame Germany for supporting its ally when it was attacked by Russia? All great powers were doing the same thing. They all were hypocritical bastards, much like great powers still are today.


The difference being that Germany actively encouraged Austria to attack Serbia/Russia and then used that as an excuse to launch a war of aggression against France.
Not really. Germany did not want war with France, at least not war with France and Russia at the same time. Their diplomats were pretty desperate in the days leading up to the war to get France not to support Russia. And before that the Kaiser had been trying really hard to convince his cousin the Tsar not to support Serbia. Germany did not want war with France any more than France wanted war with Germany. Which is to say that all of them were quite eager to come to blows with the other, just on terms that favoured them. Saying that Germany's war against France was a war of aggression is pretty ridiculous. Germany attacked France to defend itself because France was mobilising its troops to attack Germany in the rear while they fought Russia. Germany did not want war with France any more than France wanted war with Germany (which is to say that both were quite eager to have war with each other, just on terms that favoured them).


It's certainly fair to say the French were more than ready for war with Germany; you just have to look at their opening moves, straight into the territory Germany took in 1871. And it's fair to say that the Kaiser didn't want a war, but the Kaiser also had very little to do with it; he was on holiday for most of the July Crisis and left the running of the country to Hollwegg and Moltke who had much more overt ambitions.

Moltke especially. His uncle, Moltke I, made his name in the defeat of France in 1870-1, Moltke II by comparison was viewed as a bit of a disappointment by his peers and was always looking for a chance to prove himself. His constant tinkering with the original Schlieffen Plan to invade France (to the extent that the actual route taken is referred to as the Schlieffen-Moltke plan) is pretty damning evidence that he was actively seeking a war with the French.

It really comes down to the Kaiser's incompetence, leaving in the middle of a major crisis, Hollwegg's short-sighteness in offering the Blank Cheque to Austria and Moltke's naked ambition and desperation to put his stamp on a war the way his uncle had. If I had to place the blame on just 3 people, it'd be them, though Hotzendorf in Austria would be pretty close behind.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Paradigm wrote:

Moltke especially. His uncle, Moltke I, made his name in the defeat of France in 1870-1, Moltke II by comparison was viewed as a bit of a disappointment by his peers and was always looking for a chance to prove himself.


Almost every major player in the start of the war has a bit of "viewed as a disappointment compared to their predecessors looking to prove themselves."
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Regardless of who promised to back up who, it was Austria-Hungary that fired the first shots. How the dominoes fell after that is irrelevant. Had Austria-Hungary not invaded Serbia. . .

well. . .

it would have just postponed WWI to a later date.

War was inevitable.
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Rasyat






 Paradigm wrote:

It's certainly fair to say the French were more than ready for war with Germany; you just have to look at their opening moves, straight into the territory Germany took in 1871. And it's fair to say that the Kaiser didn't want a war, but the Kaiser also had very little to do with it; he was on holiday for most of the July Crisis and left the running of the country to Hollwegg and Moltke who had much more overt ambitions.

Moltke especially. His uncle, Moltke I, made his name in the defeat of France in 1870-1, Moltke II by comparison was viewed as a bit of a disappointment by his peers and was always looking for a chance to prove himself. His constant tinkering with the original Schlieffen Plan to invade France (to the extent that the actual route taken is referred to as the Schlieffen-Moltke plan) is pretty damning evidence that he was actively seeking a war with the French.

It really comes down to the Kaiser's incompetence, leaving in the middle of a major crisis, Hollwegg's short-sighteness in offering the Blank Cheque to Austria and Moltke's naked ambition and desperation to put his stamp on a war the way his uncle had. If I had to place the blame on just 3 people, it'd be them, though Hotzendorf in Austria would be pretty close behind.

You say the French were chomping at the bit, but place the blame on political elites in the Central powers when they stumbled toward the war.

What about the Revanchist movements in France? It's clear segments of the French populace were willing to throw down when a suitable casus belli could be found, such as when War Minister Boulanger attempted to mobilize the French army in 1887. Boulanger was sacked for his trouble, but the popular response to attempts to sideline him and his supporters' willingness to overthrow the 3rd Republic just to start an ill-conceived war with the Germans speaks volumes.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






Pretty sure the great debate is whether to put pineapple on pizza or not.


Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in au
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





At the time, or indeed any time before the modern era, organising a significant fighting force into an army ready to march could take a while. It was widely believed, and not without merit, that if you could organize your force quickly enough and bring them to the field when your opponent was still mustering their own forces then the war was all but won for you. The attitude of 'whoever mobilises first wins' was the reason everything spiralled out of control so quickly. Germany likely figured that a repeat of their actions in 1870 when Prussia smashed through half-mobilized French forces and beseiged Paris. Even the contemporary Prussians didn't attribute their victory to superior soldiery or having a better army (at least not entirely) they knew the victory came easily because they had been marching and fighting as an army when France was still getting its act together. That was the prevailing military consensus of the time, strike first and strike hard for an easy win.

When Russia began to 'pre-mobilize' it's army that is the precise moment that the other nations of the continent 'Holy gak, this actually might be happening?' Instead of a bunch of sabre-rattling over a political crisis one of the big kids had now drawn their sabre, even if they haven't started swinging it around yet.

Personally, I don't believe that it was the intention of Russia to raise tensions by mobilising themselves. They knew they were way behind the rest of the continental in terms of logistics (and basically everything) and figured that if something really was going to happen, they'd need a few days head start to avoid getting their teeth kicked in. Germany's reaction was understandable, if they were going to play this game they were going to play to win. They didn't see the advantage in letting all of their rivals also mobilize, so when they were ready to go they went. That's an oversimplification of the conflict, but it's accurate if we're looking at what every military official was thinking and telling their bosses.



Essentially, Germany jumped the gun in WWI but the military doctrine of the time heavily encouraged gun-jumping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 avantgarde wrote:
 Paradigm wrote:

It's certainly fair to say the French were more than ready for war with Germany; you just have to look at their opening moves, straight into the territory Germany took in 1871. And it's fair to say that the Kaiser didn't want a war, but the Kaiser also had very little to do with it; he was on holiday for most of the July Crisis and left the running of the country to Hollwegg and Moltke who had much more overt ambitions.

Moltke especially. His uncle, Moltke I, made his name in the defeat of France in 1870-1, Moltke II by comparison was viewed as a bit of a disappointment by his peers and was always looking for a chance to prove himself. His constant tinkering with the original Schlieffen Plan to invade France (to the extent that the actual route taken is referred to as the Schlieffen-Moltke plan) is pretty damning evidence that he was actively seeking a war with the French.

It really comes down to the Kaiser's incompetence, leaving in the middle of a major crisis, Hollwegg's short-sighteness in offering the Blank Cheque to Austria and Moltke's naked ambition and desperation to put his stamp on a war the way his uncle had. If I had to place the blame on just 3 people, it'd be them, though Hotzendorf in Austria would be pretty close behind.

You say the French were chomping at the bit, but place the blame on political elites in the Central powers when they stumbled toward the war.

What about the Revanchist movements in France? It's clear segments of the French populace were willing to throw down when a suitable casus belli could be found, such as when War Minister Boulanger attempted to mobilize the French army in 1887. Boulanger was sacked for his trouble, but the popular response to attempts to sideline him and his supporters' willingness to overthrow the 3rd Republic just to start an ill-conceived war with the Germans speaks volumes.


That works the other way as well though. 1887 is only 15 years or so after France's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Prussians.

France may have wanted to avenge that defeat, but Germany was certainly keen to repeat it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/14 02:37:57


 Psienesis wrote:
I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.


"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







If Archie Duke hadn't shot that ostrich...
   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Rust belt

I blame the driver of the Archduke car for making the wrong turn
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Chute82 wrote:
I blame the driver of the Archduke car for making the wrong turn

And then stopping to turn around right in front of the assassin's nose...

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior





France was pretty belligerent leading up to the Great War. They seemed eager to pressure Germany, forming an alliance with Russia which they knew Germany would not like. They were more than eager to begin mobilising and preparing for a war at the slightest excuse. I believe that if it were not for France pressuring Germany into taking action, the the war would have just been a minor conflict between Austria and Serbia with Germany and Russia sitting on the sidelines.
 Ahtman wrote:
Pretty sure the great debate is whether to put pineapple on pizza or not.


That will be the great debate of the 22nd Century when all on the Wrong Side are put down in the Second Scouring War, along with people with the wrong opinions about what qualifies as a sandwich.

Still waiting for Godot. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Ahtman wrote:Pretty sure the great debate is whether to put pineapple on pizza or not.



How is this a debate? Hawaiian Pizza (ham and pineapple and cheese) has been a thing since I was a kid, and I'm pretty friggin' old.

Compel wrote:If Archie Duke hadn't shot that ostrich...


I'm sure it would have been a better plan than pretending to be mad. I mean, who'd notice another madman around here?

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Anyone like to comment on the role Pan-slavism played in Russia's "Blank Check" to Serbia?

Which "Blank Check" was worse? Russia, France or Germany?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: