I came into this thread to recommend Tuchman…which you mentioned on your first line. To answer your question about the immediate, proximate factors (rather than the big picture): Germany had an imperalist ruler and a militaristic ruling class, but couldn’t project its power in Europe after the rapproachment between England and France in the first decade. (‘Encircling’ is the term Tuchman frequently uses in her discussion of the German complaints.) They were continually building up their strength in the interim, and the prevailing philosophy of war at the time was that wars are quick, decisive things that are won by an overwhelming attack on a rigid, aggressive mobilization schedule; they were just awaiting a chance to start the war (and France, despite its militarism at the time, was well-aware that they wouldn’t be able to defend themselves successfully). Germany seized on the assassination and used the subsequent treaty complications as a pretext to start a land grab. When Germany invaded Belgium (violating the Treaty of London) and France, England declared war on Germany.
Yeah, to make things even more confusing it was more like
9. Russia goes to war with AH to defend the Serbs
10. Russian mobilizes against Austria and Germany.
11. To defend against Russia, Germany decides to war against France. 
12. To attack France, Germany decides to attack Belgium
Germany anticipated that Russia would be slow to effectively endanger Germany and its allies, and hoped to knock out France and then turn to Russia. Going through Belgium was the quick way to a knockout punch - they hoped.
Part of Austria’s problem was that there was a large political faction that didn’t want a war. Count Tisza was pretty adamantly opposed, and along with him, a lot of the Hungarians. So Austria was forced to wait a month trying to negotiate with a non-compliant Serbia.
In the Franco-Prussian War, the superior organization of the Prussian military machine allowed them to mobilize far faster than France, enabling them to invade France while the French were still struggling to respond. In WW1 the Germans were hoping for a repeat of this; but they didn’t take into account that the French had learned their lesson the hard way and now had an organization as good as the Germans. So the German Schlieffen plan, which presumed that the German army could march circles around the French, failed when the French proved ready. The advantage that railroads and telegraph/telephone lines gave to a fixed position then turned the western front into a defensive stalemate until 1918. Ironically, it was in WW2 when armor, air power and radio restored the offensive advantage that Germany repeated the Prussian success with a successful “lightning war” in the west.
In 20/20 hindsight, Germany would have done well simply to establish a defensive line at their western border, let the French Plan XVII smash itself to bits against it, and hold there while fighting the Russians in the east. Leaving the British (mostly) out of it, and giving the French the option of abandoning Russia and seeking a truce. As it was, because the German offensive had taken Belgium and (further) French territory, the French simply couldn’t quit, short of absolute collapse.
As explained to Indiana Jones:
I prefer the Blackadder explanation:
That’s a risk, isn’t it? Being on the defensive on the French front gives them time to mobilize, and then you’re fighting on two fronts. Russia’s big, and it’s like 1000km from Konigsberg to St. Petersburg, and about 1200 km from Koningsberg to Moscow, and there’s no way you’re going to knock Russia out of the war without taking the capital and the biggest city.
France, on the other hand, Metz is only about 300 km from Paris. A quick offensive in the west, you take Paris, and France is done. Then you can move the troops east and focus on knocking out Russia.
And if you stay on the defensive in the West, the French aren’t just going to sit there. And the French army is known for its elan. If you let them attack, you lose the momentum, the French gain it. The army that takes the offensive wins.
Maybe that’s all not true in hindsight, but people, unfortunately, aren’t blessed with hindsight when they have to make decisions.
VERY interesting. Thank you.
The understanding being that Russia had jumped on the pan-Slavic bandwagon, and had promoted pan-Slavic feeling as a way to weaken the Ottomans and Austria, and had declared itself “protector of the Slavs”, and while the Russians weren’t involved in the coup that killed King Alexander, they were happy to see it happen, and had been a major financial backer of King Peter. Remember, it was only a German ultimatum that kept Russia from going to war with Austria during the Pig War.
GIGObuster cites “Blackadder”.
[ QUOTE]
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French, and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?
Edmund: That’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
[/QUOTE]
Priceless ! Matches to some extent with a longer "Setting-off of WW1 for Dummies” routine, which I greatly like; and which comes from Ben Elton’s novel The First Casualty. Premise of the book is: it’s 1917. The hero, Kingsley, is assigned to investigate the mysterious death – which could have serious national-security repercussions – in France, of a high-ranking British officer. In the interests of his mission, he is attempting to pose as an ordinary British soldier. During a prolonged halt in a slow cattle-truck rail journey towards Ypres, the guys in his unit are talking about how they came to be in the mess that they’re in. With their being pissed-off rough soldiers, virtually every other word in their conversation is an obscenity – I’ve “edited” to clean up the language somewhat.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
“The question I always asks is, why did anyone give a damn about this bleeding Archduke Ferdinand what’s-his-face in the first place?” one fellow said. “I mean, come on, nobody had even heard of the bloke till he got popped off. Now the entire world is fighting ‘cos of it.”
“You dozy arse,” another man admonished, “that was just a bleeding spark, that was. It was a spark. Europe was a tinder box, wasn’t it? Everyone knows that.”
“Well, I don’t see as how he was even worth a spark, mate,” the first man replied. “Like I said, who’d even heard of the bloke?”
A corporal weighed in to settle the matter.
“Listen, it’s yer Balkans, innit? Always yer Balkans. Balkans, Balkans, Balkans. You see, yer Austro-Hungarians—“
“Who are another bunch we never gave a stuff about till all this kicked off,” the first man interjected.
“Shut up an’ you might learn something,” the corporal insisted. “You’ve got your Austro-Hungarians supposed to be in charge in Sarajevo but most of the Bosnians is Serbs, right, or at least enough of ‘em is to cause a t’do.”
“What’s Sarajevo got to do with Bosnia then?”
“Sarajevo’s in Bosnia, you monkey ! It’s the capital.”
“Oh. So?”
“Well, your Austrians ‘ave got Bosnia, right, but your Bosnians are backed by your Serbs, right? So when a Bosnian Serb shoots—“
“A Bosnian or a Serb?”
“A Bosnian and a bleeding Serb, you arse. When this Bosnian Serb loony shoots Ferdinand who’s heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Austrians think, right, here’s a chance to put Serbia back in its bleeding box for good, so they give ‘em an ultimatum. They says, ‘You topped our Archduke so from now on you can bleeding knuckle under or else you’re for it.’ Which would have been fine except the Serbs were backed by the Russians, see, and the Russians says to the Austrians, you has a go at Serbia, you has a go at us, right? But the Austrians is backed by the * Germans * who says to the Russians, you has a go at Austria, you has a go at us, right? Except the * Russians * is backed by the * French * who says to the Germans, you has a go at Russia, you has a go at us, right? And altogether they says kick off ! Let’s be having you ! And the ruck begins.”
“What about us then?” the first man enquired. The rest of the group seemed to feel that this was the crux of it.
“Entente bleeding cordiale, mate,” the corporal replied. “We was backing the French except it wasn’t like an alliance – it was just, well, it was a bleeding * entente *, wasn’t it.”
“An’ what’s an entente when it’s at home?”
“It means we wasn’t obliged to fight.”
“Never ! You mean we didn’t have to?”
“Nope.”
“Why the hell did we, then?”
“Dratted Belgium.”
“Belgium?”
“That’s right, dratted Belgium.”
“Who gives a damn about Belgium?”
“Well, you’d have thought no one, wouldn’t you? But we did. ‘Cos the German plan to get at the French was to go through Belgium, but we was guaranteeing ‘em, see. So we says to the Germans, you has a go at Belgium, you has a go at us. We’d guaranteed her, see. It was a matter of honour. So in we come.”
Kingsley could not resist interjecting.
“Of course it wasn’t really about honour,” he said.
“Do what?” queried the corporal.
“Well, we’d only guaranteed Belgium because we didn’t want either Germany or France dominating the entire Channel coast. In the last century we thought that letting them both know that if they invaded Belgium they’d have us to deal with would deter them.”
“But it didn’t.”
“Sadly not.”
"So what about the Italians, an’ the Japs, an’ the Turks, an’ the Yanks, eh? How did they end up in it?” asked the original inquisitor.
“**** knows,” said the corporal. “I lost track after the Belgians.”
Applause, vontsira.
And now we know why “Belgium” was the dirtiest word in the Adams universe. (On this side of the pond, anyway, which is odd…)
It’s a bit of a hijack, but after vontsira, what is the thinking of the outcome if America stayed out of it? Propose whatever change you feel needed–the Germans don’t restart unrestricted submarine warfare, the Zimmermann Telegram (sounds like a band name these days) never happens, whatever. Or is it simply too complex of a counter-factual to be worth discussion? (It seems like, while there’s plenty of WWII counter-factual novels out there, there’s nothing for WWI.)
The asymmetry between the British and German naval positions meant that the US, even if ostensibly neutral, would be neutral in a way that favored the British. Britain maintained a classic naval blockade, while the Germans could only send submarines to destroy (not interdict) shipping heading toward Britain. It seems odd to us now but originally submarine warfare against unarmed merchant ships was considered a barbaric war crime.
I think there are few better explanations than the classic “If WWI was a bar fight”
All the great wars between imperial powers in the 18th and 19th Centuries? This was just one more. But the difference is, A: They had lots of treaty obligations to help each other, as a consequence of well-intentioned treaties crafted to prevent another Franco-Prussian war, with this unintended consequence, and B: They had machine guns, planes, tanks, submarines and mustard gas, most of which were rare or not yet invented in prior wars. Each of these upped the stakes, especially the planes. Let’s focus on these for a bit.
Machine guns (Gatling Guns) had been in use since the American civil War, but were kind of rare Airplanes had been used in some earlier war in the Adriatics, but strictly for reconnaissance purposes. They were slowly and methodically armed during the early part of the war (The first planes were only for reconnaissance purposes; pilots from opposing sides actually waved at each other in their earliest encounters). The first armed planes had pilots shooting revolvers at each other, to no particular effect, and the first mounted machine guns destroyed the wooden propellers on the planes. They tried mounting the guns outside the range of the propellers (either above or on the sides), but these were impossible to aim. Finally, they used a notched cogwheel to synch the bullets with the position of the propeller.
Neither side could long enjoy a technological advantage over the other. Part of this was because Dutch aviation manufacturers made airplanes for both sides. Also, planes got captured with great frequency. If the French developed a plane with some amazing design advantage, the Germans would capture the plane, duplicate the clever geegaw, and put it into their new planes. And vice versa. Planes went from Wright Brothers-quality to the Sopwith Camel in a pretty short stretch.
The first American pilots, flying under French and British roundels, weren’t trusted with the good planes and had to settle for outmoded mail planes with tacked-on ordnance until America entered the war in its final year. But that’s more how the war ended, not how it started and got nasty so quickly.
Thanks. Poor old Belgium – almost nobody seems to like it, not even the Belgians…
To the OP: I think RealityChuck and Little Nemo covered it quite well; at least that’s the impression I was left with after reading “The War that Ended Peace: How Europe abandoned peace for the First World War” (that’s your question, isn’t it?) by Margaret MacMillan. Her writing is not on the same level as Tuchman’s, but I found her book very informative.
FWIW, an article in "The Collected ‘What If?’ " says that the British almost stayed out of it, and further suggests that if they had, the Germans most likely would have won.
They also have an article that says that over-cautiousness made the Germans unnecessarily reinforce the campaign in East Prussia at the expense of the Schlieffen Plan. Had the originally intended number of troops been available in the west, France might well have fallen as quickly as it had in 1871.
Not to get too far off the OP, but IMHO, if the British had stayed out, its Empire would have stayed solvent a lot longer and might still exist today. The Germans also had plans for an expanded Empire, mostly in the east, and it would have been multi-ethnic like the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was. IIRC, they would have incorporated Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and even Crimeans among others. Hitler would have remained a failed artist with fringe ideas, and the whole idea of Imperialism being a bad thing would likely not be the case today.
Here’s a BBC page which I expect broadly summarises her book and agrees with a lot of the points made in this thread. It’s seven short audio pieces by her, or you can read the complete transcripts by scrolling down.