WWI was decades in the making - AKA: Causes of the Great War

In My Humble Opinion
1

Turning point of WWII was a very informative thread. Thanks to all involved.

In researching WWII, you quickly come to see that, in many ways, WWII was simply a continuation of WWI. Of course, there were some new players, causes, problems. Still, to understand WWII better, one needs a good understanding of WWI.

Often, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is said to be the “cause” of the war. I don’t think it’s that simple. Yes, the assassination was the spark, but the causes seem to go back years, almost a half century.

This site has some excelent (though light) reading. Including this overview.

The British Royal Navy policy of 2 to 1 (keeping its strength at the equal or better of any two possible enemies) and the German response to that, as well as the Alliances and rivalries (discussed here) had a great impact on European tensions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I am looking for other perspectives into the causes of WWI. Or, just some details concerning the points already mentioned.

I’m especially looking forward to hearing a European outlook, as here in the States, we seem to be rather focused on our later involvement. But, anyone is invited to post.

How much did US isolationism, colonialism, and Dove politics add to the mix?

Not really a debate, just a request for more and different information.

-NCB-

2

I don’t think that U.S. isolationism had anything to do with it. Teddy Roosevelt made a good effort to turn the U.S. into a world player, but he never really dragged the country with him and neither Taft nor Wilson was inclined to follow Teddy’s lead. I doubt that any of the Europeans gave a second thought to the U.S. at the start of hostilities (or before). No one expected a four year trench war and no one expected the U.S. to be involved.

Dove politics might have had some bearing in Europe, in the years leading up to the war, but I’m not sure how. (Country A figuring that they could walk over Country B because the Country B Socialists had made them “weak”?) However, once the sabres started rattling, the Dove element disintegrated. I seem to recall that the philosophical leadership of nearly every Socialist and Anarchist movement in Europe, in July of 1914, found themselves shocked and horrified that the rank and file was so ready to drop their pacifist ideals and volunteer for the armies.

3

Some good points here. There are a number of theories concerning what led up to the Great War. Colonialist competition? Militarism? Zeitgeist?

Personally, I believe it was a combination of arrogance on the part of the three Emperors (Wilhelm, Nikolai and Franz Joseph), the sanguinity of the British, the ‘je ne sais quois’ of the French who were still smarting from the Franco-Prussian debacle, and their collective inability to staunch events when they zoomed out of control in July 1914. The Balkans were always an irritation; never a prime mover.

I can see you’ve already accessed the “trenches on the Web” site. You might want to read some Niall Fergusson. “The Pity of War”, for example. Good reading.

At that time, the U.S. was nothing in the international arena.

Whatever the cause (causes), the Great War changed everything. It’s a subject worthy of more study, IMO.

  • PW
4

One thing I have to disagree with is the website’s claim that Serbian involvement in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand “appears unlikely”.

The fact is that Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, the chief of Serbian military intelligence, was also the leader of the Black Hand. The Serbian government was not only supporting the group that killed Franz Ferdinand, a Serbian officer was actually in charge of it. When the Austrians accused the Serbs of plotting against them, they were completely correct.

5

Checks forum ID - IMHO - cool!

It was capitalism overthrowing the last of feudalism - the empires were politically bankrupt, and the folks who owned the world decided that they’d like to try their hand at running things - and, there is always a nice profit to be made from war.

“Three brothers DuPont,
patriots are they!
They make their money from munitions
in an honest way.”

Pete Seeger used to play bits of that song from the 1920’s - it goes on to describe armor that will stop any bullet, and bullets which will pierce any armor - I wish I had a full recording of it.

WWI removed the old order (for better or worse) - the resulting power shifts set up the conflicts which resulted in WWII

6

Only four posts, but chock full of information!

Extraneous, what that a commercial jingle? Or a political commentary song? (Imagine Neil Young in the 1920s!)

Nemo, exactly the kind of detail I’m seeking. (Thanks, Pale and Tom, too)
Any new-ish books I should look for? There are tons out there, and I have stuff from the 60s through 80s, but you never seem to be able tell before buying if a book is just going to rehash old stuff or provide new insights, details, connections…

Isn’t it odd how WWII and later wars completely overshadow WWI in fiction? Yeah, it’s a hijack…

7

Not exactly a new book, but an interesting one, The German Wars by DJ Goodspeed provides an interesting look on the origin of WWI by involving the French a lot more in starting the war (by financing and supporting Serbia’s secret service among other things) and reducing German culpability in starting it (Germany being the last country that mobilized for the war).

8

It’s not a newish book, but Barbara Tuchman’s 'The Guns of August" is a really interesting account of the first 30 days of the war, and covers the political events prior in some detail.

9

Revanchism. More than anything else, France wanted Alsace/Lorraine back. Their entire policy for the forty years after the Franco-Prussian war was geared to taking on Germany. Thus the alliances with England (their traditional enemy) and Russia. As the Fashoda Incident makes clear, France was willing to placate the British empire in order to get them on their side for the coming attack on Germany. They wanted war; they trained for war; and, par Dieu, they were going to get that war sooner or later.

Because France was working toward war with Germany, Germany made allies, too. After the archduke was killed, France basically said to Serbia, “Are you going to take that from them?” when Austria (againt Germany’s wishes) bullied them.

There was also a high sense of national honor – “We can’t let them push us around.” Thus Russia felt obligated to back up the Serbs out of their role as the protector of the slavs. Once Russa and Austria got involved, France (gladly) and Germany (reluctantly) felt it was a matter of honor to back up their allies. Britian was more reluctant, but the “scrap of paper” – Belgian neutrality" – was a major issue, since Belgium was a good staging area for an invasion of Britian.

BTW, the concept that munitions had anything to do with the war was popular in the 20s and 30s, but is considered laughable today. Most of its adherents (Superman, for one) have realized how ridiculous it is and have dropped it. It’s based on the false reasoning that if someone profits from something, they must have caused it.

10

jea beat me to the punch. Tuchman’s books are all very well-written, and Guns won a Pulitzer. What I got out of it was that WWI was going to happen no matter what, based on Germany’s desire to create an empire (and really, really, really wanting a seaport and a great navy), lingering animosity over the Franco-Prussian war, and a bunch of other factors including the rise of the anarchists and Marxists, the death-rattle of the various monarchies, and international treaties that were both intricate and insane.

I was impressed by how big a role cran played in the French war effort – the German army seemed to consistently underestimate the French because the Germans relied so much on military theory, whereas the French frequently acted, well, French. (And I mean that in a good way).

11

Well, I’m off to the library, then bookstore!

Thanks, all.

12

No - that was not a jingle - it was actually a round (as in “row, row, row your boat” - they knew how to sing in the pre-radio days). Rich-bashing was quite popular in the leftist political circles.
It is said that being a Communist during the Depression was more respectable (in some circles) than being a Republican.

13

I do not agree with RealityChuck that Germany supported A-H “reluctanltly”. IIRC Germany gave A-H all the support they wanted which led to A-H giving Serbia an ultimatum Serbia couldn’t accept(which led to Russia mobilizing and Germany to declare war on Russia and France as the Schiffen plan said). Without the support A-H demands would have been more reasonable and war might have averted. Some historians also see the incident as a test of the resolve of France, Russia and UK, a followup to an incident in North-Africa som years earlier.
Revanchism and the fleet issue was certainly the reason why other nations were so prepeared to go to war but not the deciding factor in the A-H Serbia dispute.

I have never heard that UK thought of Belgium as a staging ground for an invasion. Such an invasion would be difficult even with a 1 to 1 fleet, not to mention the logistics. I think it was more the general reasons for wanting to beat Germany that made them use Belgium as an excuse than fear of a German Belgium in particular.

If I was to give a reason for WW1 it would be Germany’s fleet. Trying to outbuild UK was never going to work but it meant that France knew that UK wouldn’t be on Germany’s side which left their flank and empire secure. UK never had any reason to support either side in a war and would be the nation you needed to start a war, since peace was in UKs interest no war would come, i think.
That Germany under Bismarck had won quick and cheap wars might have persuaded some people that the next war would be similar.

The only similarity between WW1 and WW2 that I can see is Germany trying to dominate the continent. Although Versailles agreement set up (with the depression) WW2 the motivation and some of the players were different.

Can’t see any reason to blame american isolationism for the wars. In the 1. i doubt if it would make any difference, in the second early intervention might stop it but I wouldn’t blame FDR for not doing anythisng.

14

Both Austria-Hungary and Germany wanted a war in 1914, although not a world war. Austria-Hungary was facing increased nationalism; many in Vienna thought a war against a foreign power would help unite the country. Serbia was a long-standing irritant and obligingly provided an incident. Austria-Hungary’s plan was to defeat Serbia in a short war with the other powers staying neutral.

Germany meanwhile was looking at the future of its strategic situation. Germany’s allies were Austria-Hungary which was facing the above mentioned internal problems and Italy which was at best a wavering ally. Nor were Austria or Italy first rate powers. France, which hated Germany, was allied with Russia and was growing increasingly closer to Britain. Russia was starting work on a major long term renovation of its armed forces which would leave it much stronger and Britain was on the verge of a full alliance. So the Germans decided that it was better to have a war in 1914 when they had a reasonable chance of defeating France and Russia and hoping Britain would stay neutral rather than wait a few years when their chances would be worse.

15

And even though he was dead by the time the war came around, didn’t Bismarck’s tactics what lead to Germany becoming such a loose cannon?

16

I think it was more the abandonment of Bismarck’s politics. Bismarck tended to pursue a conservatve foreign policy, with things like the adoption of the “Three Emperors’ League” (The alliance between Germany, Austria, and Russia), the main purpose of which seemed to be to prevent a Balkan war. The league set Germany up as a kind of mediator between Austria and Russia, and, in fact, at the peace conference in Berlin, after the Russo-Turkish war, he was able to keep the Russians from demanding too harsh terms from the Turks, which probably prevented a World War right there (Britain and Austria threatened to intervene if the peace was too harsh).

Bismarck also decided not to build up the Navy or get involved in colonial expansion, because he knew that would provoke Britain.

He also made sure that, before Germany got in a war, its enemy was diplomatically isolated, so, even though Germany got into a lot of wars under Bismarck, he made sure they wouldn’t escalate into general European wars.

It was Wilhelm II who was the “loose cannon”, making an enemy of the Russians, alienating the British by building up the navy, and sparking international crises in Morocco. (Bismarck would never have allowed a Russo-French alliance…preventing such an alliance was one of the major goals of Bismarck’s foreign policy.

17

Precisely, Captain. Excellent post. We must never forget the geography of Europe. Indeed, the ‘enemy’ in WWI was known as “the CENTRAL powers”. So who was on the edges? France and Britain on the left; Russia on the right. The Turks and the Balkan hotchpotch were never more than pawns in this game. Remember the Balkan War of 1913? Nobody does.

South of the Alps was never top of mind to Bismark. Any more than North of the Baltic was. What was important was the situation of being ‘piggy in the middle’. He was always careful to act thereafter. He could learn that lesson looking at Napoleon. Right?

  • PW
18

Several of Bismarck’s policies were changed after he left office and these changes helped lead to the Great War. Captain Amazing mnetioned several of these. Another was Bismarck’s policy on Alsace and Lorraine. The two provinces have a distinct culture. Bismarck said that the best way to keep them away from France was to emphasize their own local culture. But after he left office, other German officals tried to solidify their hold on the territory by imposing a more Germanic character on the people. This backfired; it provoked resistance, led to anti-German resentment, and made the France appear more favorable by contrast.

19

Hearing this old idea that munitions manufacturers were behind WWI has caused me to suddenly understand some more of the background of a computer game I played a few months ago. It was set in the early 1960s and WWI was still going on, and the reason it kept going was these huge corporations were manipulating the nations into fighting.

I thought it just sounded vaguely cyberpunk, and wished they had used something that felt more appropriate to the times. Turns out it made sense.