Then you should read Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, written in 2005 by David Fromkin (also the author of the highly regarded A Peace to End All Peace).
Fromkin makes a pretty convincing case for Austro-Hungarian and German responsibility for the war. The Germans didn’t perceive themselves as in the ascendant in 1914–with France and Russia industrializing, they thought their position would grow weaker with each passing year, so they wanted war as soon as possible.
But they needed (or thought they needed) Austria-Hungary’s support. The assassination, and A-H’s subsequent lust for a punitive war against Serbia, provided a way to get it. A-H needed Germany for the war against Serbia, and Germany needed A-H for the war against Russia and France.
First of all, to apologize, the book is “The Pity of War”. “The Pity of it All” is Amos Elon’s very good book about the history of Jews in Germany from 1743 to 1933.
But Ferguson argues that German victory in the war would have lead to a European trade union dominated by Germany.
If you look at Bethmann Hollweg’s September Program, it calls for pretty much that, along with the annexation of Luxembourg, the payment of war reparations by France, control of a French ore basin, and the possible control of some French fotresses.
To further MarcusF’s point, Russia’s growing steel output and in laying down railroad track also indicated (to Germany) that Russia’s industrial strength was going to surpass Germany’s by 1918 or so (by Germany’s estimate). The number of Russian artillery guns (the German’s made a direct correlation between steel output, and military production) was feared to become greater than any two other powers combined.
The interlocking alliance system works fine when the major powers are at (or near) equal strength. But it failed when one (or more) of the powers felt that they had no choice but to go to war, or “lose” (like Germany vis-a-vis Russia) the status quo they had worked so hard to obtain, or when the powers felt that they finally had the strength to ignore the demands of others.
That phrase is commonly applied to Turkey, not to Russia. It was recognized that Russia was not so far advanced industrially, but it was assumed to have the advantage of its immense population.
In “Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War” Robert Massie pretty puch puts the blame on the Kaiser as a warmonger looking for glory. He supports the view that the A-H demands were intentionally unacceptable to provoke Serbia. However, Massie seems especially hostile to Wilhelm personally. So take it with a grain of salt.
John Keegan supports the “automatic” nature of the rush to war. The timetables had been scientifically calculated and the generals knew that each days delay equaled X square miles of territory lost to the enemy. So once the mobilization commenced, nothing could be allowed to stop or slow it.
The Black Hands assassination may be the bloodiest yet successful terror attack ever. The Serbian ultra-nationals had long dreamed of a pan-slavic nation headed by the Serbs. And this is pretty much the description of Yugoslavia created from various part of the old A-H empire.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across that way. Maybe butting in and yelling alongside you at whoever made the original assertion. Anyway, apologies again for coming across as jerkish.
It’s hard not to be. World War I was in large part founded on WIlhelm’s character. This is a man who confirmed every prejudice of England toward Germany (not that the prejudice was entirely true, but Wilhelm made it seem so). He was brash, rude, and had all the understanding of international politics of your neighborhood alley-cat. He had a huge inferiority complex. He probably wasn’t gay but enjoyed the company of some men believed to be gay, partly because women rejected him or he them.
His english mother was an absolute joy who did nothing to hide her disappointment that his left arm was crippled (a result of poor medical care at birth). Freud could have written volumes about the Kaiser’s dislike of England and women based just off that. The Kaiser’s wife, a dimwitted “brood animal” meant to produce children and nothing else, was nicknamed “the Holstein.” The young Kaiser spent much of his childhood playing around the barracks and evidently had virtually no relationship with his father.
He was rash, bombastic, had horrifically bad taste, wanted to be loved by everyone (presumably as a result of not being loved at home), and generally stuck his nose into everything. He was the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. He also ruined Germany’s alliance with Russia which guaranteed her security. He messed up her chances to smooth relations with England. WWI wasn’t really his fault, but he was arguably just the wrong man and the wrong time. He was particularly liable to make a mess of things.
smiling bandit, to be fair, a lot of it was not Wilhelm’s parents’ fault-his grandparents played a huge part. They basically looked down upon his mother because she was English, and treated his father Fritz, their son, like dirt. If only he, Frederick III, had not had only a three month reign because of advanced throat cancer-the history of Europe would likely have been far far different.
Keep in mind too that during his birth, not only was Willy’s arm injured, but he was also without oxygen and had to be revived-and it’s thought he suffered brain damage.
It seems obvious to me that the blame for WWI falls on many different players, including Germany. One thing that can be said is that Germany definitely took some streps that actively (not just passively) contributed to a world war (though I suppose you could say that they were just reacting to the situation).
I believe they were actually the first power in the conflict to actually enter the territory of another country. They invaded Belgium, whose neutrality the British had guaranteed since the creation of the country. They may have thought that Britain would make a symbolic protest and then leave the French and Belgians to their fate, but the fact remains that they attacked a neutral country and that the British had always said they would defend Belgian neutrality.
One thing to bear in mind is that no one, certainly not the Germans, thought that there would be a protracted and bloody war as a result of their actions. I imagine this is why the Germans didn’t take Belgium’s neutrality seriously and why they were willing to attack France first (and thereby possibly be seen as aggressors).*
It’s absolutely ridiculous to assign sole blame on Germany for WWI. It is also absolutely ridiculous to not see Germany’s crucial part in the escalation of the conflict into one of massive proportions.
*Another part of this is that Germany saw France and Russia (then allied with each other) as their main threats. In any war they would have to contend with both. The situation was such in the lead up to WWI that Russia and Germany were potentially going to clash militarily. The calculation that the Germans made was that in a fight with Russia they had to knock out France first since it would be able to mobilize faster and would be a threat sooner than Russia.
That’s a bit complicated and it depends on what you want to count. On August 1st through August 2nd there were small skirmishes with Russian troops on the German side of the border. On August 2nd German troops occupied Luxemburg. As far as I can tell that was the first time that foreign territory was invaded “for real.” The invasion of Belgium started on the 4th.
True, but I would argue Germany must bare the bulk of the blame for the First World War starting when it did (see post #28 ). Do you agree? If not how do you see the blame falling out? (Genuinely interested!)
A violation of morality? No. A violation of basic common sense? Yes.
There is probably a GD thread or three about whether the western powers (without exception in posession of foreign empires acquired and maintained through organised violence) were in any position to preach to the Japanese about their imperialism, but it shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone that Ultra-Nationalist Military-Dominated Regime + Interruption of Crucial Supplies => Shit in Fan.
is there any good evidence for the “brain damage” theory?
The physical injury was obvious. If promoting an aggressive foreign policy and behaving like an impulsive jerk at times connotes brain injury, we’ve had a lot of brain-damaged leaders. :dubious:
Then I don’t think we can assign any “blame” to the Allies. They simply wanted Japan to stop her oppression. More to the point, Japan’s attack was irrational and almost inevitably doomed (and they knew it). However, they assumed that Americans were afraid and unwilling to fight. Frankly, they didn’t understand that there’s a difference between honor and cowardice, and assumed that cruelty and treaachery are the same as courage. They are not the first to have made that mistake.
