Germany, France and Great Britain were signatories to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality.
German war planners relied on a plan of invading both Belgium and France in the event of a war against France and Russia. They scrapped alternate plans. As a result in any crisis where there was a risk of war between the powers, Germany left themselves with no option to limit escalation and could only opt for a maximum engagement that violated their treaties.
Germany declared war on France prior to France declaring war on Germany.
Germany issued an ultimatum to Belgium threatening invasion unless Belgium allowed German troops to pass through on the way to invading France.
France made deliberate efforts to avoid violating Belgian neutrality.
Germany’s first offensive into Belgium, which by their own admission was the first stage of their plan to advance to Paris occurred before France’s first offensive into Germany.
Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany that it would declare war unless Germany withdrew from Belgium. Despite their own planners thinking they were unlikely to win against Russia, France and Britain, Germany persisted because their war plans prevented them from deescalating.
Discuss. Feel free to bring up the eastern front and/or Austria and Serbia if there’s value in discussing that side of it.
France’s mobilization plans (and indeed everyone but Germany’s mobilization plans) meant “Getting the troops in the right location to defend our territory or attack our enemy” - a provocative step to be sure, but Germany’s mobilization plan was explicitly an invasion plan - set up to put their troops, not to ready positions in Gemany, but into Belgium and France (and neutral Liechtenstein as well).
German forces were deeply offended when Belgium resisted their forces (as Belgium was required to, to maintain its neutral status - to allow German free passage would be in effect declaring themselves to be German allies) leading to deliberate acts of destruction of property and murder of civilians.
Note that in the Franco-Prussian war, both sides managed to stay out of neutral Belgium.
False. The author of the Sleepwalkers found the documents that proved the French deceived the author the Guns of August and others.
All true. German was certainly the aggressor vs Belgium, which although a “friendly neutral” towards France was still a Neutral.
But the Invasion of Belgium was not the cause of the Great War.
Who caused the Great War- well, pretty much every European Power. They were all Imperialist Colonialists (and what Belgium did in the Belgian Congo was certainly a crime).
So, let us go back to the Franco-Prussian war. The facts are clear- Emperor Napoleon III got insulted over a telegram and declared war on Prussia, thinking this would be a walk over. But it was not- the North German confederation beat the crap out of the French, causing the Paris Commune and the 3rd Republic. However, the Prussians were not good winners, they forced the defeated French to sign the Treaty of Frankfurt, where the terms were quite harsh.
The French were angry- and justifiably so at the terms of the treaty of Treaty of Frankfurt. They began plotting revenge. The gave the Russian government millions to build rail lines so that the Russians could mobilize quickly against the Germans in the next- which the French again, wanted and were sure they would win. This was cause #1.
All the European nations started preparing for that war. Cause #2
Kaiser Wilhelm, being a fool of the first order- decided to build a great fleet- as he thought to show his relatives the British how much he admired them. This was a huge mistake. The British could not allow any nation to challenge them at sea, and started building more battleships, and also turned the British public against the Germans- instead of the old foe- the French. Cause #3 Maybe.
Meanwhile Serbia hated the Austro-Hungarians for many reasons- both reasonable and not. So, they assassinated the Archduke. Cause #4.
Now, this was a legit casus belli- but the Austrians (I am just gonna say Austrians or AH for the rest here) got carried away. Then that Fool- Kaiser Wilhelm, you remember him? He gave AH the “carte blanche”- which meant that Germany would back any play. So AH made unreasonable demands on Serbia, which knew Russia would likely back them up. Cause #5
Russia then mobilized- which in those days was tantamount to declaring war- since it was an expensive and difficult thing to do- The Kaiser begged the Tsar (his relative) to not do it- but the Tsar, sure that the Russian juggernaut would win as Russia had guarantees that France would declare- said no. Cause #6
Then The French, seeing their long term plans come to fruition, declared war on Germany- which was expected, since they had that deal with Russia- Cause # 7
Now yes, Germany invaded Belgium, which was the act of an aggressor- no one disputes that- but it was not the cause of the Great War. By that time AH had attacked Serbia, Russia had mobilized vs AH and Germany, and France- then very soon after- Germany- declared war.
Experts continue to fiercely debate this question. Yes, the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, triggered a series of declarations of war. However many scholars argue that several other factors had been creating the conditions for conflict in Europe for decades prior. As the military historian Liddell Hart wrote, “Fifty years were spent in the process of making Europe explosive. Five days were enough to detonate it.”
To understand the origins of World War I, let’s first go back to the early 1800s.
Blockquote
Three Causes of World War I
The Rise of Germany,… Nationalism… Alliance Networks
Belgium is not in there.
Yes, indeed. But the German invasion of Belgium did not start the Great War.
Britain did use it as an excuse to declare vs Germany, true. But the War had already started.
So, was Germany the aggressor vs Belgium- certainly. But that was not the cause of the Great War.
Not only that. Germany’s plans were based on attacking countries that they weren’t even directly planning on going to war with. Germany attacked Belgium because they were planning on fighting a war with France. And Germany attacked France because they were planning on fighting a war with Russia.
What caused the Great War? Germany was afraid that an announced Russian defense program would be successful and they wouldn’t be able to attack Russia unless they did it right away. And in their muddled planning, they decided that attacking Russia meant attacking Belgium.
Britain wa obligated at declare against Germany by its treaties; their preference would be to allow everyone else to fight, while they stayed out, and anticipated being able to ignore minor violations of neutrality, but the German invasion of Belgium was so egregious they couldn’t ignore it.
PS. The war between AH and Serbia isn’t a great war. It’s just another local Balkan war, like the several that had occurred less than a decade earlier. Attacking a nation that all the Great Powers had promised to maintain the neutrality of made it a Great War
DD is still claiming his beliefs (including that all the great powers, especially France were equally guilty in precipitating WWI) are supported by The Sleepwalkers.
Clearly, he has misstated the conclusions of the book, which itself is a revisionist work at odds with the historic consensus.
For a good summary of the book’s dubious contentions and DD’s misinterpretation of them, check out this post.
Excerpt:
Without Austria-Hungary’s intent to completely crush Serbia, and Germany egging them on and being determined to carry out its version of the Schlieffen Plan to which it had devoted so much study and preparation, there would have been no war.
These are big picture, long-term causes. They aren’t about which countries were the aggressors in 1914.
German and French nationalism as well as the ascendency of Prussia were long- term causes in thr Franco-Prussian war, but those don’t negate the fact that France started the war.
Yes, the claim that the widely cited order of events when the war xited is wrong based on some kind of fraud or forgery is extraordinary and requires specifics and cited evidence.
True, and if Russia had not, in retaliation attacked AH and Germany, it would have been a local war.
But Russia was the aggressor among the Great Powers. It mobilized first.
True.
The Sleepwalkers provided said evidence.
But it does not really make any difference. France and Russia made no secret of the fact that as soon as Russia Mobilized, so would France and they would attack Germany from both directions
In The Sleepwalkers, Clark argues that no sole country is to blame for starting the First World War, rather, each country unwittingly stumbled into it. This is contrary to the conventional theory, the Fischer thesis, which argues that Germany bore the main responsibility for the war.[1]… Furthermore, while Clark does not seek to place responsibility on Russia alone, he places more emphasis on Russian actions than many previous historians, stating: “Yes, the Germans declared war on Russia before the Russians declared war on Germany. But by the time that happened, the Russian government had been moving troops and equipment to the German front for a week. The Russians were the first great power to issue an order of general mobilisation and the first Russo-German clash took place on German, not on Russian soil, following the Russian invasion of East Prussia. That doesn’t mean that the Russians should be ‘blamed’ for the outbreak of war. Rather it alerts us to the complexity of the events that brought war about and the limitations of any thesis that focuses on the culpability of one actor.”[7]
The book challenges the imputation, hitherto widely accepted by mainstream scholars since 1919, of a peculiar “war guilt” on the part of the German Empire, instead mapping carefully the complex mechanism of events and misjudgements that led to war.[8][9] There was, in 1914, nothing inevitable about it.
That post is not here in GD. If that Poster wants to come here and make those points, fine, but you quoting another poster as you argument fails.
The question isn’t who mobilized when. It’s who took hostile action when. Mobilization is not a hostile action until your mobilization takes you into another nation’s territory.
In the Great War, since Mobilization was such a big deal- extensive, and very expensive,- every nation assumed Mobilization was an act of war and a tacit declaration of war.
Your citation agrees with my statement regarding facts. It adds an interpretation of facts which is interesting but not particularly relevant. Once again,
Germany was prohibited by freely signed treaties from violating Belgium (and Luxembourg’s) neutrality. They did it anyway and “We really wanted to” is not an excuse.
Britain was obligated by treaty to enforce Belgium (and Luxembourg’s) neutrality - the fact that they had (if the Wiki article’s interpretation is correct) additional motives is not particularly relevant. If a “mandated-reporter” reports potential child abuse, as they are legally required to do, the parent gets no leeway by claiming that the reporter also hated them. Even if the reporter had hated the parent for decades, the legal obligation is the legal obligation.
A big deal in the way a serial domestic abuser might seek to justify their criminal behavior in a “look what you made me do” sort of way. Mobilization was not an act of war. Full stop. It did not justify Germany engaging in a preemptive attack against Russia’s western ally, let alone through a neutral nation.
And this is just straight up weasel-wording:
The Russians were the first great power to issue an order of general mobilisation and the first Russo-German clash took place on German, not on Russian soil, following the Russian invasion of East Prussia.
Hmm, yeah. Russia advanced into German territory before Germany advanced into Russian territory. What do you want to bet that’s because the entire premise of the Schlieffen Plan was that Germany would start the war by advancing against Russia’s western ally first, and only try to hold off the Russian military to start with, and not shift to a full-on offensive in the east until after it knocked France out of the war?
So the assertion is only controversial to the extent it is disingenuously framed as if it’s some kind of smoking gun showing that Russia was somehow the initial aggressor in WWI.
Please quote the part of the Quora answer that actually says Russian mobilization was an act of war.
It was provocative, indicating that Russia would defend its ally (the ally that had capitulated to Austrohungary’s ultimatum), but if mobilizing forces is an act of war then the US went to war with the USSR in 1963 (DEFCON 2 is certainly the equivalent of mobilization - if not worse!). Note that A-H had partially mobilized in 1912 (when the First Balkan War was about to begin) and no one took that as a declaration of war (and A-H sat that war out). A-H also partially mobilized in late July 1914. Was that a declaration of war?
Well, that’s one way of avoiding uncomfortable facts. Odd that to this day you’ve never attempted to refute them in the original forum where the post appeared.
As for the defense that some-Wikipedia-editor-seems-to-be-as-impressed-with-Clark-as-I-am, note that that person says:
So you’re taking one author’s interpretation, which you’ve mangled, while failing to address its deficiencies or explaining why it’s “peculiar” to agree with the overwhelming consensus of historians in assigning blame to imperial Germany for violating neutral countries and invading France, in the absence of which world war would never have occurred.