As I said, other countries played a part in the build up. But it was Germany that invaded. Had Germany not launched the Schlieffen Plan, it seems unlikely Britain would have gone to war, for example. France would probably not have launched an independent attack. Russia might have (though I don’t buy Norman Stone’s analysis here), but I would think it would have been a localized war over Serbia.
Other countries were absolutely involved, but I’ll stick by the idea that Germany started the whole shebang, and, had they not done so, there would have been no “world” war one.
Do you feel Britain would have become involved in a war with Germany (particularly a land war) had France not been attacked, in particular via Belgium?
Take Britain out, and its a very different war. I’m not certain that France would have attacked Germany had Germany made very clear it was not looking to invade France/Belgium either. If that is the case, then the war, if one would have happened, would have been a Russian/Serbia vs Germany/Austro-Hungarian affair. And, moreover, had Germany not been pressuring the Austrians, its not certain they would have been so provocative towards the Russians.
I don’t and never have thought it was all Germany’s fault. Mostly is probably fair, given that I am British, and British involvement was proximately caused by German actions.
Do you feel that Germany would have invaded Belgium had Russia not mobilized for war on the boarder? Or had France declared they would not honor their treaty obligations to Russia and stayed neutral? Or…or…or…
The entire European alliance system was at fault for WWI. They had all been mobilizing to fight it for decades before the first shot was fired. It wasn’t Germany’s fault. It wasn’t France’s fault. It wasn’t the UK’s fault. It was ALL of their faults…those bloody minded Europeans were at fault. So, trying to fix blame after the fact and use punitive measures against those who just happened to collapse first was the height of folly. But then, we ARE talking about Europeans, so there you go.
Well, it’s understandable why you would see things the way you do. You have to realize that the perspective changes, however, depending on which country you happen to have been brought up in and raised and most importantly taught in.
Given all the mobilization, the war would have started somewhere even if the Germans hadn’t immediately invaded. I doubt the Germans had any expectation that the British would agree to their violation of Belgian neutrality for an attack upon an ally. Now the question is whether the war would have spread anyway if the initial attacks happened in the Balkans, given the web of alliances. I rather thought it would, because no one expected the war to be as brutal as it turned out to be.
We in the US and UK were taught through movies and such that the Germans were the bad guys, which was strengthened because they actually were in the more familiar second war. Since the Austrian empire dissolved, no anger was directed to them.
The Germans were hardly blameless, but the whole situation was unstable. That’s why Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August is so thick.
I think that Germany did have a larger than average share of responsibility for the outbreak of war in 1914. Germany was the only country that was seeking a general war at that time.
Austria-Hungary wanted a war to keep its ethnic minorities quiet and strengthen the Hapsburg regime but it only wanted a limited war in the Balkans. None of the other powers wanted a war at all that year.
But Germany looked at the strategic situation and realized its position was weakening with time. France would not be reconciled with Germany as long as Germany held Alsace and Lorraine. Russia had recovered from 1905 and was in the process of modernizing its economy and its military - it would be a much stronger opponent within a few years. Britain was growing closer to France. Germany’s allies, Austria-Hungary and Italy, were growing relaitvely weaker.
So Germany looked ahead and decided that there was going to be a war at some point and that every year that passed increased Germany’s chances of defeat. So they might as well start the war as soon as possible. Preferably over some cause involving their allies as that would ensure their full support. So when Austria-Hungary got into a dispute with Serbia, it suited German interests to push it towards a general war.
Possibly but not certainly, I agree. Russian mobilization was a provocative act (though undertaken in response to provocation from Germany and A/H), but I think you will agree actual invasion is more of a causus belli than mobilization.
I agree and never said otherwise. Blame is everywhere. But Germany has the lion’s share. Everyone packed the keg full of explosives, but it was Germany that lit the blue touch paper and retired.
Definitely. But I was saying more that Britain’s involvement was the fault of Germany. And without Britain’s involvement the war would have been quite possibly over by Christmas. OK, that’s not definite, and I don’t think Paris would have fallen in 1914 as the BEF wasn’t that involved in the Miracle on the Marne, though had done excellent work slowing the Germans down (as did the Belgian army). However, a French collapse in 1916 had the British Empire not been involved is IMHO a likely outcome (presuming the French had actually participated - I think an Eastern war could have been a definite possibility).
That’s Norman Stone’s argument certainly, but I don’t fully buy the mobilization required war argument. I certainly don’t buy the mobilization required total war argument. And Russian mobilization certainly didn’t require the invasion of neutral Belgium.
I don’t see Germany as particularly the “bad guys.” The way the Great War is taught in the UK is a wonderful topic and probably worth its own thread - the “Lions led by Donkeys” concept was pretty standard when I was taught it (I’m a big defender of Haig).
Could you give me a reference(regarding Haig)? I’ve read “Mud, Blood and Poppycock,” and Ranulph Fiennes’ spirited defence in “Captain Scott” regarding the series of British victories in 1918, but “Lions led by Donkeys”, as you say, seems to be the consensus.
"If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia’s expense…
"For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe: England…
“To gain England’s favor, no sacrifice shoudl have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition.”
Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, Munich
Great Britain and the United States could have avoided the Second World War. I am glad we did not. The empires conquered by Germany and Japan would have been the most evil the world has ever known. At least another six million Jews would have been killed. The Slavic countries would have been gradually depopulated and resettled with people from the Germanic countries.
WW2 was necessary for everybody. Every so often, such evil gets perpetrated that it is necessary not just to destroy the evil, but most of the good, in the world to get rid of it. It’s just punishment on humanity for being…human.
Intellectual ferment in Europe had reached a point that would threaten any totalitarian regime ever again; therefore, Europe’s democratic movements had to be eliminated. The depression in the USA had released populist sentiment and reform that would have kept the country a 5th-rate military power if it had not been stopped by militarization. Japan had enslaved all of Asia it could, with no one either willing or able to turn her aside.
Things were in such a mess that it was necessary to destroy most everything to save any of it.