World War I: 5 Historians, 2 queries

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I think the only point that was rejected by Serbia was to allow officials of A-H to have complete authority in Serbia in the investigation of the assignation. Bad diplomacy by eccentric European national leaders of all countries involved lead to this sad senseless and idiotic war. I'm wondering what's next? The treaty of Versailles was kind and just and in no way caused ww2. Gotta love European revisionist history to this day!

warspite1

Bizarre... I guess it's some kind of progress. You've seem to have moved the focus of your ire from the UK "because we burnt down the White House" to Europeans generally - eccentric European national leaders, European revisionist history.....

What or who are you directing the charge of European revisionist history at? Historians - European or otherwise - do not speak with one voice; particularly where WWI and it's causes are concerned. What is clear is that the reasons, the blame, for WWI is open to debate and will never be known for certain. That debate is as keenly fought over by US historians as it is Europeans.

And as for eccentric European leaders. Yes, when looking back at what happened in those years of hell and madness, it's hard not to be angry as well as monumentally sad for those caught up in it. But to simply dismiss all the politicians and leaders of the European countries at that time as eccentric is rather silly. For the most part (with some exceptions) these were decent people, acting in what they thought were the best interests of their country. If they knew what we know, how many would have acted differently?

1914 was the culmination of something that had been brewing for sometime. The statesmen of the time were no doubt trying their hardest to get the best outcome possible (for some that meant war, but for most that meant peace) but events were moving too fast, we're too complicated, involved too many different competing factions to be resolved peacefully. What seems certain is that even if war was somehow averted in 1914, the pressure for a reckoning of powers was simply too great and would have blown up sooner rather than later in any case.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

As far as Germany not having a firm enough hand in A-H's negotiations with Serbia, the other aspect to note is that A-H, on top of crafting an ultimatum designed to be rejected by Serbia, also deliberately withheld updates and news regarding the negotiations from Germany until the very last minute in the event that Germany might take a more moderate on the crisis.

I'm not trying to assign undue or extra blame on A-H for starting the war, but rather that there are reasons for Germany's inability to "control" A-H's escalation of the crisis beyond just "Germany wanted things to play out the way it did so that a general war would erupt"

warspite1

Yes I don't seek to view AH as a complete blameless lap dog who acted purely on the command of the Germans - hence my comment that there were other nations that contributed to WWI. There was nothing the AH wanted more than to deal with Serbia. But the fact was imo, that Vienna was realistic enough to know that they were simply too weak to take on Serbia (with Russia threatening support) without the Germans promise to step in.

It's a fascinating subject.

[JeffroK]

My vote would be that Austria-Hungary had most to do with the start of The Great War.
Conrad von Hotzendorf, the A-H Chief of General Staff seems to have had a fixation on the Austro-Hungarian Empire expanding its borders in the Balkans, Italy & Russia.

Plus, I believe the Germans did mobilize in an amazingly short period, its plans for mobilization had been prepared and practised for many years.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

No sorry I still don't get it. If you are going to reject an ultimatum - an ultimatum that is effectively a **** take (because you are not supposed to accept it) then you still look weak having given on all other points. Why not just say "get stuffed". After all, the Serbs had no guarantee the Austrians wouldn't say "okay we've humiliated you enough, we will accept all bar that one". If the Austrians did that, the Serbs would look rather foolish no?

I think the Austro-Hungarians didn't want their ultimatum accepted and threw in one point Serbia couldn't possibly accept without compromising it's own national sovereignty.

Warspite1

That Austria did not want the ultimatum accepted is not up for debate - and they threw in more than one condition they "knew" Serbia could not accept. My question was - if the Russians gave the Serbs a blank cheque then why did the Serbs not reject the ultimatum out of hand? Why bend over backwards - and humiliate themselves in the process? Look at what Serbia agreed to!!!

By rejecting just one point -- a point no sovereign nation would ever agree to -- the Serbs rejected the entire ultimatum engineered by the empire and thereby put in motion the beginnings of WW I, which certainly is up for debate.

[rodney727]

Yes I realize that mr W. Here are my thoughts. 1. This was a senseless war unlike WW2, as many as 30 million souls lost their lives or were wounded, European imperialism was a major factor in the result of jealousy that lead to fatal alliances. I will disagree with you on the eccentric part and you only have to look at 1919 at the UK and France on their thoughts and views on punishing the losers of that war, like I said before until the UK and France and to a great extent Russia admits that yes we did play a role in causing WW1 it will always be revisionist history. That's my view.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I think the only point that was rejected by Serbia was to allow officials of A-H to have complete authority in Serbia in the investigation of the assignation. Bad diplomacy by eccentric European national leaders of all countries involved lead to this sad senseless and idiotic war. I'm wondering what's next? The treaty of Versailles was kind and just and in no way caused ww2. Gotta love European revisionist history to this day!

warspite1

Bizarre... I guess it's some kind of progress. You've seem to have moved the focus of your ire from the UK "because we burnt down the White House" to Europeans generally - eccentric European national leaders, European revisionist history.....

What or who are you directing the charge of European revisionist history at? Historians - European or otherwise - do not speak with one voice; particularly where WWI and it's causes are concerned. What is clear is that the reasons, the blame, for WWI is open to debate and will never be known for certain. That debate is as keenly fought over by US historians as it is Europeans.

And as for eccentric European leaders. Yes, when looking back at what happened in those years of hell and madness, it's hard not to be angry as well as monumentally sad for those caught up in it. But to simply dismiss all the politicians and leaders of the European countries at that time as eccentric is rather silly. For the most part (with some exceptions) these were decent people, acting in what they thought were the best interests of their country. If they knew what we know, how many would have acted differently?

1914 was the culmination of something that had been brewing for sometime. The statesmen of the time were no doubt trying their hardest to get the best outcome possible (for some that meant war, but for most that meant peace) but events were moving too fast, we're too complicated, involved too many different competing factions to be resolved peacefully. What seems certain is that even if war was somehow averted in 1914, the pressure for a reckoning of powers was simply too great and would have blown up sooner rather than later in any case.

[decaro]

Historian Max Hastings in his "Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War in 1914":

"The war had not been precipitated by popular nationalistic fervor, but by the decisions of tiny groups of individuals in seven governments ..."

"So extravagant was the sentimentality with which the war was promoted in its early months that in due time, as its human cost soared, a lasting revulsion emerged among some of the audience, who felt that they had been duped. The genuine merits of the allied cause became profoundly tarnished by the baroque language and spurious religiosity with which it was marketed, especially in the eyes of the generation that would do most of the dying that made victory belatedly possible."

According to columnist Cal Thomas, Hastings noted that world leaders were no more ignorant or intelligent than those in this century, but he called them "deniers, who preferred to persist with supremely dangerous policies and strategies rather than accept the consequences of admitting the prospective implausibility and retrospective failure, of these."

Hastings blames the major cause of the war on Germany's decision to support Austria's invasion of Serbia by "believing that the Central Powers could win any wider conflict such action might unleash."

[rodney727]

Thank you Joe. I have took the time to read this also via google. And also thanks to warspite he is also making making me read more about this war. Yes the Germans were itching for a fight but again so was France and Russia. Please everyone keep posting this is fascinating to me.