Alice65–Welcome! 
They did not know that it was** over**. All they knew was that an agreement to end the fighting had been signed. They could not conclude that it was the end of the war. (And indeed that did not conclude until the Germans signed the Treaty, under a threat of the resumption of hostilities.
Yeeeeaaah, up to a point Lord Copper. Mounting local attack that at best might gain a few miles of ground. That’ll be almost immediately forgotten in the bigger picture by almost everyone seems a poor reason to send men marching into machine gun fire.
Being in the middle of reading several World War I books, I only wanted to add, everyone remembers Hindenburg, but Eric Ludendorff was probably as powerful a figure in Germany for the last two years of the war. And he earns “bonus points?” for standing tall when Hitler and the rest of the Beer Hall boys dove for cover when the putsch went bad.
I will end with a quote from his Wiki page: “he broke with Hitler because he regarded the Nazi leader as too moderate.”
Yowza!
Yes, many. There was Austria-Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia in 1908, two Balkan Wars in 1912-13, and two Moroccan crises in 1905 and 1911. Each time, world war was avoided. In some cases the alliance system acted as a brake on war, because no country wanted to fight its allies’ battles. And for all his inane bluster, when push came to shove, the Kaiser usually came down on the side of peace.
In 1914, obviously, it worked out differently. The Kaiser was genuinely offended by Franz Ferdinand’s murder (more so than most Austrians, who thought Franz was a pro-Slavic wuss). He supported A-H in its retaliatory war on Serbia, regardless of consequence. That in turn guaranteed that A-H would support Germany in its preventive war against Russia and France.
That’s why forestalling the assassination might have prevented world war. There would have been more crises, but the stars might never have lined up wrong again.
It could be argued that this is true (adjusting the time interval) for every European war since the 30 years war in the 17th century. In particular, it has been argued (I can’t remember by whom, so I apologize for not having a cite) that one can predict the frequency of wars in European history on the basis of the previous peace treaty. The argument goes like this:
At the moment it is signed, a peace treaty generally reflects the balance of power at that moment. As the strengths of countries’ militaries wax and wane, the lines drawn eventually no longer reflect the reality of military strength. Once a country is a lot stronger militarily than the last peace treaty reflects, it becomes advantageous for that country to start a war. If the peace treaty is unnecessarily harsh (as was perhaps true of Versailles), it hastens the inevitable correction (ie, the next war).
I do not necessarily subscribe to historical determinism, but there may have been an element of this in play for WWI.
If I may risk the Wrath of Frank, please explain the Cherokees, be they confused or not.
Was World War III inevitable? If you could time travel back to 1962 and stop whowazzit from doing whatever with the watchamacallit would it even matter? The U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were going to go to war anyway for some reason or other.
In short, I think it was avoidable. However, even if you stopped the assassination it probably would have started soon anyway…but not necessarily.
(1) Was war avoidable?
Answer: Yes…but the Kaiser wanted a war with France. He fully intended to provoke a war, and did so (at the time he did) because he saw that Germany would become weaker (and the UK and France) stronger, after 1914. In his own journal, he commented (1914:“it is NOW or NEVER”)
(2) When it became obvious that the war would degenerate into a bloody slaughter, why wasn’t a halt called?
Answer: every military leader thought that “victory” was just around the corner-so the increasingly bloodier battles got worse and worse. Even the Kaiser knew that (by 1915), there would be no gain from the war, only economic exhaustion and (very likely) the fall of many royal houses (his included).
A Polish economist (Israel Bloch) predicted the awful results of WWI (in 1909)-unfotnately, he wasn’t listened to. He said something like “victory can only be achived at the price of total bankruptcy”-and he was right.
I think there is some validity to the historical determinism idea… But there is also some support for the “technological determinism” idea. The machine gun, the tank, the atom bomb…all changed the nature of war.
Also, the historical determinism model can be screwed up by unexpected leaps in national capacities. I have heard some people suggest that the U.S. and Britain were “on collision course” for a war c. 1920, but that U.S. triumphs in the Spanish-American war nixed this: it suddenly became obvious that the U.S. wasn’t a weakling to be shoved around by the European powers.
The “determinism” idea works best in a slow-moving world of essentially continuous organic change, but it breaks down when there are big, sudden changes.
John Keegan:
He goes into considerable and illuminating detail on the causes of the First World War in the opening to his book The Second World War (which of course was brought about by the First). Short version:
[ul]
[li]Improvements in public health and farming caused populations to explode[/li][li]The resulting mass conscript armies were orders of magnitude bigger (and better equipped) than anything that came before[/li][li]Mobilization schedules (made possible by, and relentlessly driven by, newly-built railroads, many of which had been designed with mass mobilization in mind) created a “use it or lose it” scenario in which anyone slow to mobilize would be overrun by someone else[/li][/ul]
Thus there was enormous pressure to mobilize, and once the order was given, hugely complex organization and tight time schedules made it easier to just let it happen than to stop it.
edited to add: This nearly-automatic reaction to others’ mobilization – everyone poised to launch prepared systems into operation, under intense time pressure – is the reason behind the metaphors like “pregnant with war” and “fire breaking out.”
Hi, I am following up on a previous comment about the 11-11, 11:11 date and time for the ending of WWI.
Fasching does begin in Germany at that time, I was able to go back to my records and a couple of webpages and verified it. The celebration of Fasching is old and has been connected to the celebration of Mardi Gra, it definitely is not done in a positive manner, but more mocking toward the men. Apparently the number 11 also has undertones to it’s significance.
To my mind that is why this date was chosen, in the manner of an insider ‘joke’. Certainly not blatantly in your face, but anyone from over there would have noted the significance.
Everyone who has supplied facts about the lead in to the war has been square; the source for the information is where differences appear. My old books are quite interesting in how the information is written.
True, it’s not until relatively recent that it is acknowledged that Germany wasn’t the sole blame for the war.
While it is now acknowldedged that France and England were also ‘not aversive’ to the coming war, it still strikes me as rather lopsided to view that it was Germany’s responsibility to appease England and France.
Why on earth should they hand back Alsace Lorraine?
By what law does England hold sole rights to the seas, why shouldn’t Germany be allowed to have a navy?
Though progress has been made, in history writing, to get to the true causes of the war there is still some Anglo- French bias in portraying Germany as somehow being uppity, not knowing its place.
I’m not sure that I can agree with this. How was Germany appeasing anyone? She mobilised her armies and gave Austria Hungary a blank cheque to do as she wished with Serbia. England never had sole rights to the seas: she did however have a policy that required a large Navy to allow trade with her then colonies. Germany did not have the extensive colonies that GB had- there was no need for a large navy- except for the Kaisers desire to have these shiny toys much the same as his English relatives.
Also, you need to be mindful that Prussia, then Germany, had been involved in very successful military campaigns against Austria and France previously. They were seen as being aggressive- and they were. Bismark was no longer around and the Kaiser was pretty much a superficial idiot.
Yes, Germany was largely responsible for the Great War. The UK, in particular, was very reluctant to go to war and it was not certain she would until the last moment.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean to “appease” France, since Germany declared war on France.
Sorry,
I meant this in response to several posts that stated that the war could have been avoided if Germany had not persued its fleet building policy or if it had handed ‘back’ Alsace to the French.
This still puts the blame with the Germans. If they had been ‘reasonable’ there would not have been a war.
I’m putting question marks as to why these ‘war avoiding measures’ would be reasonable.
Why would it be unreasonable for the newly risen state of Germany to want the same powers as the other big states?
Why would it be reasonable to give german territory, with german culture and language to the French, that had ‘only’ conquered it some 200 years before.
Latro, I am having some difficulty with your comments. Especially about Germany handing back Alsace to the French. I have never heard of that being a trigger. Probably an irritant to the French, but not one they would have gone to war over.
There was no question over Germany having the same power as Russia, France or the UK. They had it.
There were plenty of potential problems for Europe at the time, and eventually other reasons may/ may not have triggered the Great War. However, I don’t think there is much doubt that the finite cause was the wish to teach Serbia a lesson with unacceptable demands that Austria/ Hungary made after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and his morgantic wife. After mobilization began it had an impetus all its own.
Heh. “Launch on Warning”?
Not quite. 
You have to have your troops where they are needed before they are needed. In the case of Russia, every soldier, every gun, every cartridge at one point had to be moved by sled to get to the front.
No, Alsace, Lorraine, and the German navy were only causes of diplomatic tension between Germany and France and Britain. Germany was not obligated to hand anything over to Britain or France in order to appease these tensions.
The cause of the war was Germany telling Austria to go ahead and invade Serbia. That’s what turned an ongoing diplomatic conflict into a war. German “war guilt” is based on that.
All of the countries of Europe were ready to fight a war. But it was Germany that started the war.