World War One

[jondy]

Ultimate blame for starting the world war falls on Wilhelm's shoulders. Promising unconditional support to Austria-Hungary mobilised the Russian army - once they were marching, the alliance system could then suck in everyone else. The fact that the Kaiser then withdrew his support supports the assumption that he didn't have a clue what he was getting himself into.

 

[Solaris]

Ultimate blame for starting the world war falls on Wilhelm's shoulders. Promising unconditional support to Austria-Hungary mobilised the Russian army - once they were marching, the alliance system could then suck in everyone else. The fact that the Kaiser then withdrew his support supports the assumption that he didn't have a clue what he was getting himself into.

He never withdrew his support, just got cold feet and by that time it was to late to stop.

I think Wilhelm was forced into provoking a world war for reasons already mentioned.

 

[The Monkey]

Who or what do you hold responsible for the war?

The poltical climate.

Before WWI there had been a relevantly long period of peace. During that time, France, Germany, Britain and Russia had build up their colonial and/or domestic empires. This became a conflict as the countries were beginning intrude in other's intrests. Combined with the nationalistic movemets at the time, a conflict was more or less inevitable. In 1914, everyone wanted a war; both sides were sure there would be a victory before the end of the year.

But it was probably the most unneccicary war in the history of mankind. So many lives were thrown away in the trenches for no other purpose than to keep the war going. It is, IMO, a more catastrophic war than WWII, despite there being more casualties in the latter.

 

[jondy]

He never withdrew his support, just got cold feet and by that time it was to late to stop.

I could argue the semantics, but it amounts to the same thing. Was he forced by the climate? Wilhelm's inferiority complex had already marred German foreign policy - this was simply another mistake bourne by his impulsive, aggressive nature. I'm not foolish enough to place all of the blame in the hands of one man, but the reason why the Serb-Austria conflict escalated into world war was because he promised unconditional support to Austria.

 

[Solaris]

I could argue the semantics, but it amounts to the same thing. Was he forced by the climate? Wilhelm's inferiority complex had already marred German foreign policy - this was simply another mistake bourne by his impulsive, aggressive nature. I'm not foolish enough to place all of the blame in the hands of one man, but the reason why the Serb-Austria conflict escalated into world war was because he promised unconditional support to Austria.

Yes, I agree. Austria Hungry would not have attacked Serbia without Germany's blank cheque imo. But why did Germany want to provoke a war?

 

[Sulkdodds]

But it was probably the most unneccicary war in the history of mankind. So many lives were thrown away in the trenches for no other purpose than to keep the war going. It is, IMO, a more catastrophic war than WWII, despite there being more casualties in the latter.

Apparently a lot of historians are now disputing this.

We'd need someone who knows more about the historiography of WWI to go into detail on that.

 

[Solaris]

Apparently a lot of historians are now disputing this.

We'd need someone who knows more about the historiography of WWI to go into detail on that.

Yes, I'm reading a book by Daniel Something or other (hows that for a source lol) in which he says 9million died in the conflict, I've seen similar figures thrown around quite a lot in my studies of the war.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't mean the casualty count - I mean disputing that it was a pointless exercise in brutality and idiocy, and disputing the whole 'lions led by donkeys thing'. Apparently in the latter half of the conflict the British were really wising up tactics-wise and it wasn't the slaughterhouse that's commonly depicted.

As I said, I only heard this word-of-mouth through a history teacher so I've no idea what the details of the argument are.

 

[jondy]

But why did Germany want to provoke a war?

Well, this is the issue - Wilhelm held a position which allowed his personal issues to disproportionately influence his policy. His views didn't necessarily reflect contemporary German opinion, but he was nevertheless able to pull the required strings. Whether his 'opinion' was due to the German intellectual/aristocratic elite is another matter entirely - but his initial attitude (as shown in policy) toward the Austria/Serb conflict is reflected in his personality.

EDIT: The fact that Wilhelm, upon realising the ramifications of mobilising Russian troops, 'got cold feet', suggests that he didn't want to provoke a world war. But he is nevertheless responsible.

 

[Geogaddi]

Militarism
Alliances
Imperialism
Nationality

?

 

[el Chi]

Train timetables.
I forget which historian argued that, but it's a quaint little theory presented very well.

It's ridiculous to say "Factor X was responsible for World War One", where "Factor X" is a nation state/alliances/capitalism/etc. because it was an extremely complicated amalgam of many.
So Solaris' tired old "Capitalism did it" argument seems very, well, tired and old.

Imperialism and capitalism aren't the same thing (as Solaris seems to think) and imperialism was far more a driving force behind the events that led up to WW1.
I'm not saying that was the only force either, because it quite obviously wasn't the only factor.
However I'm tired and I can't be bothered to get into this in detail.

 

[repiV]

Even if capitalism did cause wars, which is nonsense, I'd rather live in a free and violent world than an oppressed and peaceful one.
Personally I'm curious - if socialism is so fantastic, why isn't Solaris dying to get into Cuba or Venezuela to experience the glory himself...

 

[Asknoone]

A few minutes under the glorious chavez and he'd be running off home - home being the nearest capitalist country - as soon as possible.

 

[Tyguy]

It was alot of everything, but the assassination definitely sped things up

 

[Pajari]

World War One was absoloutey not a pointless war. It basically broke the back of every single imperialist nation, with the exception of Japan, and remade the world along political lines- national socialism and later communism versus capitalism. The slaughter in the trenches was horiffic, but total casualties were actually less than World War Two. I'm not sure how much longer that incredibly ineffecient and corrupt system could have continued on, but for every second that it existed civilization was being held back.

You can trace the liberation of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast asia directly to the First World War, and of course, you can trace World War Two to it as well. Among the two, I view WW1 as the more important for that reason.

 

[Spoonoop]

I didn't know there was a debate on who's fault it was. Everyone at the time blamed Germany for starting the war, and made them sign that treaty to limit their military and such, which they never did. I'm not sure which came first, the assassination of that Ferdinand dude or the invasion of Belgium by the Germans. I think that invasion is what pissed of the Brits and started it all. I'm just goin by what I can remember. Feel free to yell at me if I'm wrong So yeah, anyways, it was the Germans!

 

[Direwolf]

Well WWI would probably rank over importance to WWII simply because it created so many factors that led to WWII.

 

[staticprimer]

I didn't know there was a debate on who's fault it was. Everyone at the time blamed Germany for starting the war, and made them sign that treaty to limit their military and such, which they never did. I'm not sure which came first, the assassination of that Ferdinand dude or the invasion of Belgium by the Germans. I think that invasion is what pissed of the Brits and started it all. I'm just goin by what I can remember. Feel free to yell at me if I'm wrong So yeah, anyways, it was the Germans!

Here's a quick time line of events for you:

• Slavic nationalists actively resist the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Serbia (a vassal of the Austrian Empire).
• Archduke Ferdinand of Austria goes to Serbia to help smooth things over.
• Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated, causing Austria to move to clamp down hard on Serbia.
• Russia declares war on Austria in defense of their 'Slavic brothers'.
• Germany declares war on Russia in defense of Austria.
• Germany declares war on France and Belgium preemptively because they are part of Germany's best (and perhaps only) war plan, the schlieffen plan, in addition to already present tensions between Germany and France, due in part to a dispute over the Alsace-Lorraine region.
• England declares war on Germany in defense of France.

As you can see, it was a big mess.
It is hard to place blame on a single country. The only case of truely preemptive war was by Germany, but it was only a matter of time before France and England would have entered, even without Germany starting things with them.

Well WWI would probably rank over importance to WWII simply because it created so many factors that led to WWII.

Not only WWII, but arguably many of the conflicts going on in Africa and the Middle East presently (due to the collapse of imperialism following the war).

 

[Bob_Marley]

[*]England declares war on Germany in defense of France.

Belgium, actually. Both Britian and Germany had signed a treaty to protect Belgian neutrality in the event of war. When the Germans invaded Belgium Britian was forced to intervene.

I don't mean the casualty count - I mean disputing that it was a pointless exercise in brutality and idiocy, and disputing the whole 'lions led by donkeys thing'. Apparently in the latter half of the conflict the British were really wising up tactics-wise and it wasn't the slaughterhouse that's commonly depicted.

As I said, I only heard this word-of-mouth through a history teacher so I've no idea what the details of the argument are.

Indeed. Particularly the British and Germans adopted tactics and equipment much more suited to the new war in the latter half, with advances such as the tank, walking bombardments, the hand held submachine gun, storm trooper/infiltration tactics, close air support (well, as close as it got to close air support with WWI technology) and so on.

 

[Solaris]

Belgium, actually. Both Britian and Germany had signed a treaty to protect Belgian neutrality in the event of war. When the Germans invaded Belgium Britian was forced to intervene.

Actually, although this was the official line, Britain had plans to to blockade Belgium ports if they did not enter a world war.

 

[99.vikram]

Even if capitalism did cause wars, which is nonsense, I'd rather live in a free and violent world than an oppressed and peaceful one.
Personally I'm curious - if socialism is so fantastic, why isn't Solaris dying to get into Cuba or Venezuela to experience the glory himself...

Sweet god...do you say anything that is != "yay capitalism"? :|

I mean, this thread is about WWI, not the merits of capitalism/socialism.

 

[staticprimer]

Belgium, actually. Both Britian and Germany had signed a treaty to protect Belgian neutrality in the event of war. When the Germans invaded Belgium Britian was forced to intervene.

Ugh my mistake.