Who started World War I?

[Agathosdaimon]

Its impossible to know for sure, but from what learned in history at university it seemed to be as much the fault of poor communication technologies between the various belligerents, and the their mobilisation plans were all behemoth wheels that once they started turning, which the numerous crises led to, no one had the means to stop them - and of course such plans in olace were not really made on the fly but formed out of previous ideas of how a war would run its course.
This said, although all the powers had their own plans in place it seems germanys attack on france and what horror it became - hmmm perhaps it was a war with still 19th century ideas but with 20th century technologies.... There are just too many factors...too much nationalistic sabre rattling on all sides

[Curtis Lemay]

World War I happened because just about everybody wanted it. And not just the political leaders - the common folk in the street. Announcements of the war were met with jubilation. The soldiers marching to the front were gleeful, even giddy. Who wouldn't want a war? War is glorious! Thrilling!

The problem was that it had been a century since the last major war in Europe. Nobody was alive who remembered what it was really like. The history of that war had been romanticized clean of blood and gore. It was all glory.

Contrast this to Munich 24 years later. Now you had a generation that had seen the monkey show and knew what it meant. Appeasement was better than war by then. Everyone (one exception, of course) were bending over backwards to avoid war.

[chemkid]

.

[Hotschi]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But wasn't the point that Austria couldn't run the risk of war with Serbia without German support (because of Russian support for the Serbs)?

True, but Germany would have had no reason to offer support, if A-H would not have wanted to punish Serbia in the first place. That's how I see it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But wasn't the point that Austria couldn't run the risk of war with Serbia without German support (because of Russian support for the Serbs)?

True, but Germany would have had no reason to offer support, if A-H would not have wanted to punish Serbia in the first place. That's how I see it.

warspite1

Indeed. The AH position is one of the "other factors" I mentioned in post 4.

[SLAAKMAN]

The Illuminati caused WWI.
http://www.henrymakow.com/illuminati_ba ... d_wor.html

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

The Illuminati caused WWI.
http://www.henrymakow.com/illuminati_ba ... d_wor.html

warspite1

Good point. Hadn't thought of that possibility......

[SLAAKMAN]

ON THAT NOTE SILLY WARSPITE2-NEWBLETTE I CHALLENGE U TO "FATAL ALLIANCES"!!! [:D]
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5466/fatal-alliances

[gradenko2k]

I would say that the most direct actor in the start of WWI would be Austria-Hungary - not only did they really really want a military showdown with Serbia, and indeed crafted an ultimatum that was deliberately designed to be unacceptable, but they also arranged their diplomacy (or lack thereof) in such a way as to sabotage negotiations and basically make it all but impossible for the march to war to be halted.

THAT SAID:

Europe was already a powderkeg, and Germany had more than its share of responsibility in filling the chamber with coal fumes. A-H was simply taking advantage of "some damn fool thing in the Balkans".

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

ON THAT NOTE SILLY WARSPITE2-NEWBLETTE I CHALLENGE U TO "FATAL ALLIANCES"!!! [:D]
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5466/fatal-alliances

I am game although I am not challenged. [:)]

But the distance, unfortunately, makes it difficult for us to play a boardgame. [:(]

[SLAAKMAN]

I am game although I am not challenged.

But the distance, unfortunately, makes it difficult for us to play a boardgame.

Distance is only a delay. We'll catch up to it eventually after I destroy the Evil Warspite2-Newblette Conspiracy of course. [:D] [:'(]

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I would urge you to post Orm. There is no right or wrong answer because, quite simply, none of us will ever know for certain. I hope the debate will continue in the manner in which it has begun.

I cannot see that politics has anything to do with it - this is a historical discussion.

So as people have already honed in on, the answer depends on what sense you are asking the question. (simplified answer coming)

If you are asking "Why did war start in July 1914?" the the answer is because elements of the German high command deliberately sought to bring on a general European war because they thought it would be in their interests.

Why did they want to do that? Because they felt that Germany was under threat by hostile powers and that 1914 was essentially the last chance (because of upgrades to rail infrastructure across Russia making the Schlieffen plan untenable) to do something about that.

Why did they feel that? Because Germany was under threat by hostile powers who'd constructed alliances to contain it for various imperialistic reasons (Britain because of the threat of the High Seas Fleet and a desire to keep Germany shut out of the colony game, France to get Alsace-Lorraine back, Russia because it wanted Poland/the Balkans firmly in it's Sphere of Influence).

Why was this the case? Because for a hundred years European powers had been playing the Great Game of Imperialism and the stakes were getting higher and higher due to increasing economic interdependence (note that beneath the incredible arms manufacture during the war everyone's civilian economy implodes because trade is completely disrupted).

I'm not sure that entangling Alliances were a particularly novel problem in WW1 (the Napoleonic wars were a thing, obviously) - although the extent to which everyone committed to them probably was. Mass industrialised mobilisation was the problem that made it the war it was.

So I'd say that Germany was the causal actor that started WW1. But I don't think there's really a moral blame to attach to that - I don't see any reason to believe that any other nation that had found itself in Germany's strategic position would not have acted in precisely the same way, and to that extend I would say that all of the Great Powers were collectively to blame for participating and colluding in a system that did not reward diplomacy and instead encouraged the use of force to protect your interests.

[OttoVonBlotto]

Think I will let Richard Curtis and Ben Elton go for me on this. [;)]

Private Baldrick: No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Captain Blackadder: Do you mean "How did the war start?"

Lieutenant George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.

Captain Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

Lieutenant George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not.

[aside, to Baldrick]

Lieutenant George: Mad as a bicycle!

Private Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Captain Blackadder: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Private Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Captain Blackadder: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.

Lieutenant George: By Gum, this is interesting. I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that.

Captain Blackadder: 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.

Private Baldrick: But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Captain Blackadder: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

Private Baldrick: What was that, sir?

Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.

Private Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing then.

[Orm]

That was indeed a tiny flaw. [:D]

[chemkid]

.

[Lieste]

Having read the "official papers", I came to my own conclusion that the blame for all out war lies squarely with Britain.

We did nothing to dissuade France or Russia from aggressive posturing (and eventual mobilisation), while simultaneously faffing with the Germans, giving an impression that we would choose not to become involved.

Earlier our diplomacy in the dispute in the Balkans was feeble in the extreme.

An interesting series of books:

tSO uncovered editions, published from the official archive of the Stationary Office London.

The title of interest -

"War 1914 : Punishing the Serbs"; The Stationary Office, London. 1999 (ISBN 0-11-702410-4)

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Speaking of the 'P' word, I'm surprised Slaak hasn't jumped in...not that I want him to.

Good old Slaak! Knew I could count on you to rise to the occasion.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

Think I will let Richard Curtis and Ben Elton go for me on this. [;)]

Very cool episode, I thought it is even on youtube...but its not. However here is another splendid outtake:

General Melchett visits the troops:[&o]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejc1wwRGjFk

[Lieste]

It is here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz8pyd ... shortfilms

[Alpha77]

Here is another view regarding WW1 (which is btw. simmilar to the one that is stated in "A Century Of War"):

Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
Carroll Quigley (1966 MacMillan)

The most disturbing section of Tragedy and Hope describes how international bankers engineered World War I and what Quigley calls the Banker-Engendered Deflationary Crisis of 1927-40 (aka the Great Depression). The parallels are unmistakeable between the current “austerity cuts” being forced on us and the harsh economic measures the banks imposed on all western governments between 1918 and 1927. The supposed justification was to repay “debts” for a four year war the bankers themselves initiated.
According to Quigley, 19th century capitalism saw a gradual transition from finance capitalism (in which bank loans fund economic growth) and monopoly capitalism (in which the profits generated by corporate monopolies fund growth). Although some private banking families invested in a few monopolies, such as oil companies and railroads. However for the most part, they preferred not to tie up their wealth in industrial stocks, less this deprive them of short term gains from loans and currency speculation.
The Threat Posed by German Industrialization
In fact, many bankers saw the growth of monopoly capitalism as a serious threat to their own economic interests. Following the 1870 unification under Bismarck, Germany experienced a rapid burst of industrialization, generating sufficient profit that they ceased to rely on investment banks to finance either business or government. A second way German industrialization threatened global bankers was by competing with England and other European countries for export markets. Russia also posed a significant threat, owing to claims it made on the Balkans and the Middle East (and Middle East oil) following the break-up of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire.
Thus between 1870 and 1914, the world banking oligarchy pressured western governments (by controlling their money supply and foreign exchange) to agree to a series of complicated alliances that had the ability to escalate local conflicts in unstable regions formerly controlled by Turkey into a full scale war (on Austria and Germany). The one that ultimately triggered World War I was a false flag incident (blamed on Serbia) involving the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne. During the same period, the world banking cabal simultaneously hatched a scheme to destabilize Russia by secretly funding the Bolsheviks and other Russian revolutionaries.
Turning a Profit from World War I
The European central banks had it all worked out beforehand how they would turn the 1914 conflict that began in Sarajevo (which they believed would only last four to six months) to their own profit. Quigley describes a secret meeting in July 1914 (war was declared August 4, 1914) in which the major European bankers agreed to allow the British Treasury to print treasury notes to pay outstanding government bank debts. However this would only be with the understanding that this “fiat” money would be redeemed with gold certificates (via increased taxation) at the war’s end. They ultimately forced similar agreements on France and the US.
Financing Hitler and the Nazis
When the war ended in 1918, public debt in Western Europe and the US had increased by 1000%. The austerity measures global investment banks forced on the US, England, France and other European countries led to a massive bankruptcies and unemployment and the virtual collapse of foreign trade. Except in Germany. The global banking elite used the wealth generated from debt repayment to finance rapid German re-industrialization and militarization, along with the Nazi movement created by Hitler and the increasingly powerful German corporations, such as IG Farben, Siemens (renamed Bayer), Daimler Benz, Porsche/Volksvagen and Krupp. Quigley identifies American banks and corporations who helped finance the Nazi movement, which included Kodak, Ford, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Standard Oil, IBM, Random House and Chase Bank.
The bankers justified funding Hitler and re-militarizing Germany by talking of the need to contain a growing world communist movement – which they themselves had created.

http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.co ... epression/