WWI: exactly how did it start?

Factual Questions
1

So I am finally filling in my sketchy understanding of WWI with a long course of reading; I’m about halfway through Tuchman and have been reading some more narrowly focused books in parallel.

Two things jump out at me. First, the collective IQ of the rulers of Europe was somewhere in the middling two-digit range. It’s just beyond comprehension how collectively stupid, short-sighted, egotistical and willfully determined to fuck everything up this extended family was. I no longer have any sympathy for the plight of the Romanovs, a few years on; the nations should have rounded up everyone related to the extended family linkage and shot them, too, around 1912. (Note for those who don’t know: nearly every royal in Europe at the time was closely related - siblings, first cousins, a scattering of marriage links where those conditions didn’t apply. WWI can be seen as the worst family fight in history.)

The other is that I still don’t understand how it started. Yes, Europe was a valley of armed camps. Yes, there were cross-linkages of alliance and mutual protection that pretty much guaranteed everyone would be drawn in and involved. The aforementioned collection of ruling idiots guaranteed the first big mistake would be the match that set it off.

However… it’s taken as gospel that the assassination of an Austrian archduke by a Serbian nationalist was that match. I still can’t make the connection. The Serbians wanted independence. They make a fumble-fingered killing of a nephew of the Austro-Hungarian emperor… and two months later *Germany *basically declares war on everyone else. Can someone with a more developed understanding take this evolution step-by-step and tell me how what was really a minor internal issue of one nation became the justification for another to go postal? (Other than that Kaiser Bill had spent years mumbling “Postal… Postal… Postal…” like the kid in The Shining.)

2

I don’t think we’ll settle the answer here–there have been other threads about this and I haven’t seen the banner headlines elsewhere proclaiming “ORIGINS OF WWI REVEALED ON SDMB.”

For a different perspective, not one I agree with, look at Niall Ferguson. His argument is that Germany was falling behind the other great powers militarily and economically, and launched the war in an attempt to preserve and enhance its status. There’s probably more to that than my rough summary, but it’s against the grain of most explanations.

3

When the last glaciers left Europe and land opened up for people to fight over. Probably before.

4

This is a very, very complex question and a fascinating for it.

I think it is too complex to write in a board post. I would heartily recommend Dan Carlin’s excellent series on this: Blueprint for Armageddon. He is still not done with this series on WWI but this first episode will likely answer your question if you have three hours to listen to it (well worth it…also available as a podcast so you can listen in the car or commuting or whatever). Three hours seems crazy but I’ll bet if you like history at the end of three hours you’ll be wishing there was more (there is more…just the first episode of his on WWI).

His podcasts on other parts of history are also great. I recommend all his stuff.

5

I will try to give a short answer. Hehe, as if that is possible. There were plenty of European wars in the 19th century. Win or lose the basic nations involved mostly did not suffer a breaking of the status quo or any great national catastrophe, just loss or gaining of national pride and bragging rights. Even the big Napoleonic Wars did not change the nations too terribly.

Then in the twenty years prior to 1914 there was more or less peace and leading up to 1914 all the world powers did huge weapons and military build ups.

So the great European leaders of 1914 figured that this next war would be more of the same, some good old fashion battles and when they had finished it would be back to the world and life they had before the war. Same as in the 19th century.

But what the world leaders misjudged was the new weapons of war that would transform wars to a whole different animal. The new artillery and machine guns and other new war technologies changed everything in ways that the 1914 leaders never guessed at.

6

I’m not asking for a “big picture” analysis of what caused the war - I have enough acquired understanding to know the gist, and I am in the process of filling in the blanks and getting a deeper understanding of the whole mess.

I would like as short and specific answer as someone knowledgeable can give to this specific question: EXACTLY, connection by connection, how did the assassination of Ferdinand lead to the actual outbreak of war (which appears to be when Germany declared war on Russia and then France in quick succession). I don’t understand the chain of events in those few weeks, and why a relatively minor murder in one country is considered to be the flash point for the war.

7

Listen to the podcast I linked to upthread. It really is fascinating and it answers your question.

I wish there was a short and neat answer that you want but there really isn’t one. Any such answer will be woefully lacking in important nuances and detail of the geopolitical situation at the time. This is not pretend complexity making something needlessly complex…it really is complex. The whole thing was a weird web of alliances and treaties and geopolitical realities.

If you want a “quick” answer it was because Kaiser Wilhelm II was a goof and utterly unable to mange the system Bismarck had crafted (Bismarck was a freaking genius).

8

Serbia was already independent. Many Serbs (and Bosnians) wanted Bosnia (which had at the time, IIRC, an ethnic plurality of Serbs) to be independent as well, or maybe folded into Serbia. Bosnian independence movements had some Serbian support, and Austria used the excuse of Francis Ferdinand’s killing to demand measures that would have seriously hampered Serbian independence (IIRC, control of Serbian school curriculums to make sure there was no anti-Austrian material being tought was one of the egregious demands).

Germany was an ally of Austria, and Russia was the traditional protector of Serbia, so that’s how they got involved, and things spiraled from there.

9

Okay. I can accept that there isn’t a clear answer… but I am still bemused that after reading fairly deeply on this short period, even the major historians don’t seem to be able to justify the claim that Ferdinand’s assassination was an exceptional link in the chain. There seems to be a certain degree of arbitrarily selecting this event among many others as “the start” or “the cause” or “the flashpoint.”

The Kaiser was nuts and hell-bent on war and conquest, and had been for years. His increasing panic that Germany might not have the upper hand at the outbreak of war seems to be the only driving factor; the last few rounds of negotiation and diplomacy were ignored and brushed aside because he’d already decided to open a two-front war. The timing, within a few months, seems almost random… and I still can’t see how the Ferdinand assassination was any major influence on the events that followed.

shrug Reading continues.

ETA:

That makes as much sense as I think any short answer can.

10

Ferdinand’s assassination wasn’t really a big deal in and of itself. Were countries REALLY bent out of shape by his assassination? No…hell no.

The issue was you had a tinder box of treaties and the end of an era where “empire” was still a thing. Ferdinand’s assassination started a ball rolling that no one could pull back. MAYBE a better diplomat could have put the pin back in the grenade that was pulled with the assassination but Wilhelm certainly was not that guy.

EDIT: To add to the weirdness Ferdinand was probably the best friend the Serbians had in the government back then. What I would really like to know is why, of all people, they chose to assassinate him? Seems counter-productive.

11

Perhaps one reason why the assassination meant more than it otherwise might have was the rise of anarchism and the assassination of several heads of state in previous years, including Empress-consort Elisabeth of Austria in 1898. The anarchists were the terrorists of their day, and the various governments were getting increasingly vexed about it.

12

It was a domino effect. Austria Hungary was allied with Germany (and countries too alliances very seriously and didn’t opt out) and didn’t like Serbia. Russia was allied with France and thought of themselves as the defender of the Slavs (i.e., Serbia).

So it boiled down to:

  1. Archduke assassinated.
  2. Austria-Hungary makes demands on Serbia that Serbia could not accept.
  3. Russia says, "don’t mess with Serbia.’
  4. AH goes to Germany and says “remember our alliance.”
  5. France (which has been itching for a fight with Germany since 1871) says to Russia, “Do what you want; we’ll back you.”
  6. Germany backs AH.
  7. Serbia ignores AH’s demands.
  8. AH goes to war with Serbia
  9. Russia goes to war with AH to defend the Serbs.
  10. Germany goes to war with Russia to defend AH.
  11. France goes to the aid of their ally and declares war with Germany and AH

That was the immediate cause. The UK had an agreement with France they could opt out of, but they could not let Germany invade Belgium. Belgium was seen to be a perfect staging point of an invasion of the UK, and they couldn’t allow Germany to have that “dagger pointed at their heart.” This was the “scrap of paper” that Germany derided.

After that, countries joined in the fray for various reasons. Notably there was Italy, which was allied with Germany and AH, but didn’t join them, and entered on the allied side after they were promised certain things once the war was over.

Note, too, that no one thought the war would be a long one. Most people thought it would last six months: someone would score a breakthrough and the whole thing would end. So the idea of a quick victory was in the air at the various war departments.

13

I think RealityChuck has boiled it down about as concisely as you can.

Ferdinand’s assassination was a flashpoint because the resulting outrage gave the political cover to a pro-war ( pro-Serbian war ) party in the Habsburg state to issue an ultimatum to Serbia ( which, almost certainly correctly, was thought to be aiding and abetting Serbian nationalists in A-H ). Said ultimatum was very deliberately skewed to be so extreme that it was felt Serbia would be unable to accept it and would be driven into a struggle in which they would be quickly overmatched. And if Serbia did accept it they would have been functionally emasculated as a further source of trouble in the Habsburg’s Balkan territories.

The key is that Austria or at least the dominant court political faction wanted a war. With Serbia. Which they thought they’d win handily. From that particular bit of aggressive and somewhat tone-deaf belligerance did most everything else stem.

14

Did Russia have treaty obligations to assist Serbia? If the answer is ‘no’ (which I think is the case), did the Russians really have to come to their defence? If they had let Serbia stand alone, basically let it fall, the war could have been averted (at the expense of Serbian independence, of course).

15

I agree with RealityChuck and I have to add this bit:

More notably, if one takes into account the historians that see WWII as a continuation/part of WWI, then we have the weird case that Italy changed sides 4 times during the war!

16

Tuchman is a great start. If you want more, add Robert Massie’s “Dreadnought” to your reading list. It is dense and thorough…it will not improve your opinion of European leaders. Also, surprisingly, the opening chapter of John Keegan’s “The Second World War,” which presents a fascinating summary of the root conditions that set up the war.

17

A relatively short answer and one not everyone will agree with. But here’s my take.

Austria-Hungary and Germany wanted a war, albeit different wars for different reasons.

Austria-Hungary was concerned about the stability of their ruling regime. There were a lot of different ethnic groups in the Empire and many of them wanted to get out and start their own country. The government worried that when Emperor Franz Joseph died (and he was 84 in 1914) there would be a political crisis and some of the ethnic groups would try to break away.

So the government decided that a short war would stabilize the situation. It would unite the country against an outside enemy, a quick victory would raise the prestige of the government, and a show of force would serve as a warning to restless ethnic groups. So when Serbian-backed terrorists killed Franz Ferdinand, it looked like a perfect opportunity. Everyone agreed Austria-Hungary had a legitimate cause and Serbia looked like a weaker opponent that could be defeated easily.

The one thing Austria-Hungary worried about was that it might not remain just a war between them and Serbia. Russia had supported Serbia in the past and might declare war on Austria-Hungary if it declared war on Serbia. So Austria-Hungray went to its ally Germany and sought reassurance that Germany would declare war on Russia if Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany agreed (see below). Austria-Hungary hoped that this would keep Russia out of the war and Austria-Hungary could have just the little war with Serbia that it wanted.

Germany meanwhile had somewhat different plans. France hated Germany and a war between those two countries was probably inevitable at some point (Germany occupied two provinces it had taken from France in 1870 and France wanted them back). France formed an alliance with Russia - Russia didn’t want a war but if figured it had to stick with its ally. And more recently, Britain had begun towards moving to an alliance with France and Russia - it hadn’t quite got there yet but it was clearly heading that way.

So Germany could see the line-up of countries against it was getting stronger. It had originally been enemies of France; now it was an enemy of France and Russia; and soon it would be an enemy of France, Russia, and Britain. In addition, Russia was beginning a major military program that would be completed in a few years and would make the Russian army much stronger than it currently was.

On the other side, Germany’s position was getting worse. Its allies were Austria-Hungary and Italy. As noted above, Austria-Hungary was having problems holding its own Empire together and might break up. Italy was pretty iffy on its commitment to Germany and might drop out of the alliance.

So Germany looked around and decided that it was probably going to have to fight a war at some point. And that the longer it waited, the worst its situation would become. So Germany wanted the war to be fought as soon as possible before the balance of power shifted even further against it. Therefore, when Austria-Hungary approached Germany and asked for reassurance of Germany’s willingness to fight, Germany was happy to agree.

So this was the key difference between the two powers. Austria-Hungary wanted the reassurance in order to keep other countries out of the war. Germany gave it the reassurance in order to bring other countries into the war.

So Germany really was the country responsible for starting the world war. Britain, Italy, and Russia didn’t want a war at all. France wanted a war at some point in the future but didn’t want a war in 1914. Austria-Hungary wanted a war in 1914 but only a small war against Serbia with everyone else staying out of it. It was Germany that wanted a world war.

18

The Serbians didn’t want a friend of the Serbs in power in Vienna. Keep in mind the Serbs in Serbia wanted the Serbs in Austria-Hungary to break away from Austria-Hungary and join into a bigger Serbia. The last thing the Serbian Serbs wanted was for the Austrian Serbs to feel contented in the Empire. They wanted an anti-Serbian in power who would crack down on the Austrian Serbs and drive them towards rebellion.

19

There wasn’t a formal alliance. There was more of an understanding.

But Russia felt obligated to stand by this understanding even though it wasn’t legally bound to do so. Like Austria-Hungary, the Russian regime was facing its own problems. It didn’t think it could take the heat that would result if it backed down and let Austria-Hungary invade a friendly nation without fighting. Other countries would see Russia as unreliable and not worth cultivating as a friend. And Slavic nationalists in Russia would protest at seeing another Slavic people being invaded while the Russian government did nothing.

The Russian government basically felt that the risks of going to war were less than the risks of backing down from a war and looking weak.

(Incidentally one person who didn’t agree was Rasputin. He told the Emperor that Russia wasn’t prepared to fight a major war and should do whatever it could to avoid it, even if it meant abandoning Serbia to its fate. It was, ironically, one of the only times Rasputin was giving good advice and one of the only times Nicholas ignored his advice.)

20

While a good summary, this part is simply wrong. Germany declared war on France, not the other way around. German war plans were to invade and defeat France via Belgium as the initial move in a war while fighting a delaying action against the slower mobilizing Russians. Germany presented France with an ultimatum with absurd demands to ensure France’s neutrality, and when France declined Germany, which already had troops marching through Luxemburg and Belgium, declared war on France. The demands in the German ultimatum amounted to France capitulating without a fight; to guarantee French neutrality while Germany was at war with Russia France would be required to demobilize her army and surrender her border fortifications to German occupation for the duration of the war.