Yep. The Kaiser sent the so-called “blank cheque” telegram, saying basically “we’ll support you, no matter what you do.” In this sense, Germany is to blame, since A-H would not have had the guts (or stupidity) to risk a war with Russia without German support. But as everyone else has said, Europe was raring for a fight, and had been for decades (at least since 1871). A lot of tension had been diffused in colonial wars and minor “incidents” like those at Morocco, but most people imagined that a intra-European war was inevitable. That made them less eager to act to stop it. In that sense, everyone involved was blameable.
No it didn’t. Article 231 blamed ‘Germany and her allies’ (emphasis added). More to the point, the Treaties of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Trianon contained equivalent ‘War Guilt’ clauses.
The 1839 Treaty of London in practice obliged Britain to defend Belgian neutrality unless it just sat on its hands admitting treaty obligations by all parties meant nothing when Belguim requested assistance.
And another treaty with France ‘morally obliged’ Britain to come to her defence and there was no possibility that Britain would allow Germany to occupy France.
In practice Germany and Britain were imperial rivals and Germany knew invading Belgium would bring Britain into the war. The naval arms race was considered by the British to threaten their security and there were bellicose voices on all sides and the masses were spoiling for a fight.
But the bottom line is that it was Germany doing the invading and attacking so they rightly copped the blame.
Alternatively, there is the Blackadder’s Baldrick version.
The war began when ‘Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry’.
Actually, for a resource-poor industrial nation with A Glorious Empire™ to build, an oil embargo IS a causus belli of the first order (to say nothing of the embargoes on metals etc.). The IJN and the Japanese economy couldn’t run on sake and coal. The fact that this embargo was being specifically applied in order to force Japan to cease its imperial ambitions and instead let the US have a free rein to exploit China didn’t exactly help.
How do you think e.g. the US would react to having 80% of its oil supply cut off by The Furriners unless it acceded to some arbitrary set of demands? I would predict tears before bedtime.
As to the OP - for some years it had been obvious that a European war was highly likely, if not inevitable. The Germans may have been a little more eager since they were on the ascendant, but then on the other hand the other powers were also keen to pin Germany in a corner before it got too strong.
I personally have never seen anything which purported to be a serious history which assigned all the blame to Germany, and the relevant treaty clauses are pretty much universally reviled as being:
[ul]
[li]A travesty of the truth[/li][li]The cornerstone of WW2[/li][/ul]
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone a claim like this in a thread on WW1/Versailles.
Germany wasn’t blamed by the allies because the allies won. Germany was blamed because German belligerence and war mongering was a large factor in the start of WW1.
As has been pointed out, Britain did have a responsibility to protect the neutrality of Belgium, a nation supported by the European powers, to keep Germany and France from each other’s throats, through the Treaty of London (1839).
There is no spinning the fact that Germany invaded Belgium, to “get at” France, with full knowledge that it would bring Britain into the war. In effect, they turned a minor spat over an assassination into WW1, and they deserved everything they got at Versailles.
You know who else didn’t?
Aw, c’mon. Y’all knew somebody had to.
Have you ever read Niall Ferguson’s “The Pity of it All”? He argues that Britain wasto be blamed for the war because of their defense of Belgium.
Assigning “full blame” to one country is pushing it but there is a very good case to be made that Germany was responsible for WW1 breaking out when it did in 1914. Actually, Germany’s responsibility has been the subject of heated debate amongst historians since the war itself. During the war and at the Versailles peace conference the entente powers put the blame for the war squarely on Germany. Historians between the wars looked to explanations for the outbreak of the war based on the workings of “the old diplomacy” or just on muddle and mistake. After the Second World War, for which it was generally accepted that the responsibility lay with Germany, the debate turned to how far the First World War and its settlement had led to the second. It was in the sixties that the German historian Fritz Fischer’s work reinforced the view that there was continuity between Germany’s aims in the First and Second World Wars and proposed that Germany had deliberately gone to war in 1914 to solve a number of domestic problems, the so called *Primat der Innenpoliitik *.
Germany had a very direct involvement in the outbreak of the war. Soon after the assassination Berchold, the Austrian foreign Minister, decided to eliminate Serbia as a significant factor in the Balkans. To do this he needed the backing of Germany both to prevent Russian interference and to ensure Hungarian support. The Hungarian Prime Minister, Tisza, had no wish to see more Serbs added to the already complex mix of nationalities within the empire but would not oppose something urged by Germany, which in many ways was regarded by the Hungarians as a closer ally than Austria. William II, without any political or military consultation promised Germany’s full support even if it came to a war with Russia. This was confirmed by the Chancellor, Bethmann, who said, “… whatever Austria’s decision, she could count with certainty upon it, that Germany will stand behind her as an ally.”
When the Austrians rejected the Serbian reply to their ultimatum it was Germany who urged a rapid start to the war to avoid any compromise and, when Russia heightened her state of military readiness, threatened to mobilise if Russia did. Russia refused to be intimidated and mobilised. Germany then responded by ordering her own mobilisation. It was at this point that the First World War became inevitable. Unlike the other powers Germany’s mobilisation plan did not gather the armies at the border and pause, the logic of the Schlieffen plan to eliminate France rapidly before turning on Russia dictated that the armies must keep going, through Luxembourg and Belgium into France.
There were a number of key actions that led inexorably to the outbreak of the First World War. As I see it these were; Austria-Hungary’s decision to destroy Serbia, Germany’s guarantee of support for Austria-Hungary, Serbia’s rejection of a small part of the Austrian ultimatum, Russia’s decision to support Serbia and finally Germany’s decision to mobilise and carry out a full scale attack on France through neutral Belgium. Of these the one that ensured that the First World War would break out in 1914 rather than another limited Balkan war was the German decision to mobilise and attack France in a way that led to directly to British involvement. It therefore makes sense to argue that Germany was more responsible than any other power for the outbreak of the First World War.
I’ve not read that particular book. I generally like Niall Ferguson’s work but if this is the substance of his argument it’s a nonsense.
You can’t ignore the fact it was Germany invading a neutral country (and a second country that happened to be a “ally” of Britain). You can make a case that the Foreign Secretary, Grey, did not make it clear enough Britain would fulfill it’s treaty obligations to Belgium and support the entente, hence leading to a misappreciation by the German High Command, but I doubt that anything Britain could have said would have stopped the launching of the German attack in the West. Essentially they had dismissed the threat posed by British involvement (the “contemptible little army” etc).
I will try and find Ferguson’s book but does he suggest what would have been the outcome if Britain had stood aside? My feeling it would not have been good for Britain or Europe as a whole to have France dismembered and Belgium occupied.
He’s a dick then.
Excellent summary of my post there 
Is that what would have happened? I mean, was occupying Belgium and dismembering France really the objective of the Germans? It is my understanding that they wanted a ‘fresh and cheery’ war (frischer und fröhlicher Krieg) to restore the status quo and to set those dastardly Serbs and whomever was supporting them straight for upsetting it and violating god-given monarchic rule. Wars of occupation and conquest were relatively rare between the great powers (although the Germans did occupy Elzas-Lotharingen, that much is true) during the nineteenth century. This way of coexistence was established after the Napoleonic wars and although things turned out quite differently, my belief is that by 1914, the great European powers were pretty much intent on maintaining it.
The Kaiser supposedly wasn’t all that eager for war during the run-up to WWI. He did however promise unconditional support to Austria when it was making demands on Serbia, then he went off on vacation while tensions worsened.
The Serbs almost completely caved in to Austrian demands after the assassination, including virtually conceding sovereignty over the investigation of the killing. That wasn’t enough. The Austrians wanted war.
The Kaiser also gets blame for caving in to his generals - he had proposed halting the invasion of Belgium and turning his armies against Russia when hostilities were about to break out, but they insisted their invasion preparations would be hopelessly tangled if the move into Belgium was halted (in reality, they had contingency plans to switch an invasion into Russia).
As noted, Germany had been heightening tensions for years with its military posturing and naval buildup. They and Austria-Hungary are very much to blame for starting WWI, despite what revisionists claim.
Restoring what status quo? There had been no change to Germany’s system of government
Occupying Belgium and dismembering France might not have been the original aim, the perceived threat was a revitallised and re-arming Russia, but in my view the Schlieffen plan as modified by Moltke had no chance of producing a quick and clean victory of over France and Russia, with or without British participation. Even if it had, would Germany have left an intact France at their backs ready to take revenge? At the very least they would have stripped the industrial north of the means to make weapons and most likely occupied it.
Then, if as I expect it would have, the war is not over quickly and settles into the trench warfare on the Western Front but without the BEF leading to a French defeated in 1915 or 16, what then? At that period all the powers felt they were entitled to reparations for their wartime losses. Wouldn’t the Germans imposed harsh conditions on France and Belgium both to recover reparations and - even more than before - to prevent a future attack? See what Imperial Germany did to Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
I meant the status quo that existed internationally on the European continent (not inside Germany) and that was being threatened by nationalist movements in the Austria-Hungarian empire. I think that is what seen as a threat by the Kaisers - not a re-arming and revitalising Russia - I mean, this is the Russia that suffered ignominous defeat at the hands of the Japanese in 1905 and that was unable to industrialise in a meaningful way. They were the sick old man of Europe, not a threat. How different are things today…
OP here. As always, you dopers never fail me. Thanks for your replies!
I included Taiwan because it was the site, IIRC, of several massacres and various sundry cruelties by the Japanese. In response to those who disagreed with me (as opposed to Koxinga who seemed to “yell” at me but agreed with me), I il to see how refusing to trade with a jerk solely on the condition he cease being a jerk is somehow a terrible violation of morality. The western powers were hardly under some moral imperative to fuel Japan’s bid to become a tyrant.
Anyway, Germany probably wasn’t going to try and grab land from France or Belgium. But they took vast territories in eastern Europe. Huge tracts of Poland and Russia.
Not so different and not actually correct. From 1908 Russia was growing at over 7% per year which allowed a major overhaul of the Russian army in 1910. Pre-1914 Russia was developing plans for a peacetime army of up to 800,000 men and it was this, combined with tighter bonds with France, that frightend the the German and Ausro-Hungarian leadership. They could see their relative strenghth declining and a the old equilibrium going. Better to fight now than later …
Another issue to consider is the nature of war preparations at the time. Mobilisation relied on railroads, which (to a much greater extent than motor or foot mobilisation) require precise schedules to ensure a fast and efficient mobilisation. Germany knew it was likely fighting a two-front war, so it couldn’t wait until France and Russia had well begun their mobilisation plans to instigate its own (after all, the Schlieffen Plan required that France and Russia be somewhat unprepared for war). That meant that everyone was in a rush to ensure that they began mobilising first–not a good situation when things are already tense.