Who caused WW1 - revisited

[Jagdtiger14]

I'll take first hand knowledge/impressions over historians any day. And then of course there is the bias factor depending on where you were born. Since I had a cousin who fought in that war, I may be biased as well.

If you are British and have a love of British history, especially military history...enjoy the writing style of particular British historians...you will probably side with what they write, not to mention your willing default to believe your country was correct in what they did.

I agree a degree of blame can be put on all actors in this conflict. A persons doubt in his mind will depend on what side he is on. As for me there is no doubt in my mind that Serbia - and particularly France - should take the lions share of the blame for the start of this war.

German blame: part would have to go to Bismarck for not dissolving A-H when he had the chance (post Franco-Prussian war). The main part would go to the Kaiser for rejecting an Anglo-German alliance when he was offered it, and mostly not keeping in Bismarck's diplomatic advise concerning Russia. French "diplomacy" was a far greater sin.

Is there a Matrix poll question we can have on this?

[warspite1]

I'll take first hand knowledge/impressions over historians any day.

Where do historians often get their information? Do memoirs, autobiographies, etc gathered by historians not count as source material??

And then of course there is the bias factor depending on where you were born.

Not everyone is so blinkered - and I am certainly not. I love history and seek the truth - no matter who it may be unpleasant for. Not everyone thinks that 'their' country is incapable of doing anything wrong, and frankly given that most of the countries that forumites hail from, have been in existence for many hundreds of years, that notion is frankly risible.

If you are British and have a love of British history, especially military history...enjoy the writing style of particular British historians...you will probably side with what they write, not to mention your willing default to believe your country was correct in what they did.

A willing default? Yes, I think its reasonable to assume that one's starting position on any new subject will be influenced by what one has seen and read growing up - after all that is what one knows. But if one has any interest in history a person will seek to expand their knowledge, to try and understand the truth (to the extent that there is ever a known truth to be understood). I know you are no fan of things British but assume you were using the British as an example here, and that your comment applies equally to your average Frenchman, German, American etc??

I am curious though. Why, because one is British, one would enjoy only British historians? I am British but three of my favourite writers at present? One is American (Friedman) one is French (Jordan) and one is Norwegian (Haarr).

Of course, despite what you say about bias to one's country, there isn't a 'British' historians view anyway - anymore than there is a French or German or American historian's view? People of the same nationality have different views - or are you saying all American historians have one view and one view only of the Civil War? Every US historian speaks with one united voice over all aspects of that period? No of course not.

I certainly don't limit myself to authors whose views I agree with. Quite the opposite, I try and get an understanding of opposite views. Just some recent examples, I read The Sleepwalkers (Australian author) , Skaggerrak (British?), We March Against England (United States), In Passage Perilous (United States) and Dunkirk: The Patriotic Myth (British). All of these gave views and conclusions I didn't agree with but they help to understand other view points.

A persons doubt in his mind will depend on what side he is on.

While one would expect a person who fought for one side to be only too happy to believe they fought for the side that was right, that is not always the case - and would be more likely to be less so (i.e. a dispassionate viewpoint) the further away in time an episode was. I think your comment is again too much of a generalisation.

Is there a Matrix poll question we can have on this?

If what you say is true why would you bother with a poll? From what you've said above you believe that whoever has the most British or French or Germans or Russians etc taking part will win such poll because everyone thinks that their country is in the right, right?

[Jagdtiger14]

My cousin who fought in WWI did keep a diary beginning in 1900, most of it personal and local, but world events of the time were mentioned and became more detailed and prominent as it got closer to 1914. In addition to that I had my great grandmother who was 31 in 1914, but that was word of mouth (she was a real Kaiser/Prussia-hater). Both of them had the opinion/perspective that French anger/diplomacy led to WWI. Many interested in WWI fail to take that conflict in context going back to 1870 (Franco - Prussian war)...or just over look it. I think many historians are lazy, frankly...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read. Preconceived notions sometimes become starting points which leads to information gathered to back them up...this happens in current day polling put out for public consumption.

Actually I am a fan of things British: 500 AD to Henry II, Henry V, QEI, Drake, up to French/Indian War (7 years war?)...after that, not so much (respect for Nelson of course, although I like Drake more). Oh, and tea[:)] Yes, I was talking about the British, and yes, I think it does apply equally to any French, German, American, etc...including North Korean.[:D] In answer as to why a Brit would enjoy a Brit historian (note I wrote "probably", not "only")...you answered above in regards to ones starting position.

Of course not every historian from a particular country has the exact same view or bias...note: A.J.P. Taylor or Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him). I think a certain establishment and simplistic viewpoint is taught in our high schools and universities (I know first hand at least in the US and Germany). Most students including those interested in history fall into the trap of just accepting something out of laziness or disinterest. Here it helps to have a contrarian personality and I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep...not just the same old staid directions or automatic acceptance of certain conclusions. I think those historians that put the majority blame on Germany in WWI have failed on a contextual level. You cant understand WWI without starting in the 1860's (1870 at the very least)...its seed was planted then.

I'm allowing for the poll to prove me wrong[:D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Thanks to the rulers of Austria-Hungary taking the decision to use the, lazy, unimaginative, age-old 'answer' to all problems - "Go to war!" (made possible only by the support of Germany) Austria-Hungary's fate was sealed. There was an excellent article (that I can't lay my hands on at present [:@]) that shows Austria-Hungary was finished within about the first 6 months of war starting. I'll try and dig this out.

The ultimate goal of many Serbians of ending the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the forming of a Slav state was indeed achieved at the conclusion of the war. With hindsight, knowing what was to come, I wonder how many of the plotters would have decided the assassination was just not worth it.

A success? Regardless of immediate goals with regard to AH, by every other measure (for Serbians and everyone else) the assassination was a total and utter disaster.

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths as a percentage of the population were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

Total deaths during World War I for Austria-Hungary were 1,787,000 to 2,081,200, or about twice that of Serbia at 750,000 to 1,250,000. Russia seems to have taken the lion's share of casualties at 2,840,000 to 3,394,369.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And I am no stranger to the Balkans having spent almost 6 months in Bosnia peacekeeping during SFOR VII; the Bosnians were usually glad to see us, but when we went to Republika Srpska I knew we had arrived when the signs were in Cyrillic and the people stopped smiling at us.

warspite1

Apologies, I appear to have left off the word/symbol percentage/% [8|] in that First World War stat, but of course that is what I was talking about - as I remembered to do for the WWII stat. Actual numbers - when comparing countries of such differing size as Serbia vs Russia vs AH - is of course pretty irrelevant.

Amended paragraph:

According to Wiki the deaths of Serbians from all causes, as a % of the total population, was the highest of any country in WWI - possibly as high as a quarter of the 1914 population. The Yugoslav state had a brief, and tortured existence, suffering at the hands of the Germans in WWII - Operation Retribution (deaths using the same measure as for WWI were also amongst the highest of any nation in WWII) - and then being ruled as a communist state post war. The break-up of that country was also spectacularly unpleasant too.

According to Noel Malcom's "Bosnia: A Short history," of the estimated 1 million Yugoslavs who died during WW II, most probably died at the hands of other Yugoslavs.
During this time there were civil wars between Croatian extremists and Serbs in both Croatia and Bosnia and Cetniks fighting against Communist Partisans.

[loki100]

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility.

As to biases, well my parents are variously Scots-Italian and English. My partner is Dutch. I can read history in English, Italian and Dutch ... can cope with French and Russian if it comes down to it. As Warspite knows, I tend to regard the British empire somewhat dubiously, and have been known to refer to the Union Jack as the 'butcher's apron'. So you can work out if I have any automatic pro-British bias from that?

I also teach social policy research. A key part to this is getting students to work out complex chains for instances were you cannot repeat (they are essentially unique), have to rely on non-experimental evidence, and need to sort out the difference between correlation and causation.

[altipueri]

God is an Englishman, so it is all his fault.

[rico21]

Let's go a little further.
1-Have you watched a world map of 1900 with the colonies of the European powers?
2-Why did Russia annex Konigsberg (Kaliningrad), former capital of the Teutonic Knights after the ww2?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: loki100

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility....

For causing WW I, or simply prolonging it?

Why does Serbia get a pass for state-sponsored terrorism and Austria-Hungary for issuing Serbia an ultimatum no sovereign nation could accept while still retaining its sovereignty?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: loki100

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility....

For causing WW I, or simply prolonging it?

Why does Serbia get a pass for state-sponsored terrorism and Austria-Hungary for issuing Serbia an ultimatum no sovereign nation could accept while still retaining its sovereignty?

I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?'

The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

My cousin who fought in WWI did keep a diary beginning in 1900, most of it personal and local, but world events of the time were mentioned and became more detailed and prominent as it got closer to 1914. In addition to that I had my great grandmother who was 31 in 1914, but that was word of mouth (she was a real Kaiser/Prussia-hater). Both of them had the opinion/perspective that French anger/diplomacy led to WWI. Many interested in WWI fail to take that conflict in context going back to 1870 (Franco - Prussian war)...or just over look it. I think many historians are lazy, frankly...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read. Preconceived notions sometimes become starting points which leads to information gathered to back them up...this happens in current day polling put out for public consumption.

Actually I am a fan of things British: 500 AD to Henry II, Henry V, QEI, Drake, up to French/Indian War (7 years war?)...after that, not so much (respect for Nelson of course, although I like Drake more). Oh, and tea[:)] Yes, I was talking about the British, and yes, I think it does apply equally to any French, German, American, etc...including North Korean.[:D] In answer as to why a Brit would enjoy a Brit historian (note I wrote "probably", not "only")...you answered above in regards to ones starting position.

Of course not every historian from a particular country has the exact same view or bias...note: A.J.P. Taylor or Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him). I think a certain establishment and simplistic viewpoint is taught in our high schools and universities (I know first hand at least in the US and Germany). Most students including those interested in history fall into the trap of just accepting something out of laziness or disinterest. Here it helps to have a contrarian personality and I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep...not just the same old staid directions or automatic acceptance of certain conclusions. I think those historians that put the majority blame on Germany in WWI have failed on a contextual level. You cant understand WWI without starting in the 1860's (1870 at the very least)...its seed was planted then.

I'm allowing for the poll to prove me wrong[:D]

Yes. You are right on the money.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: loki100

well this thread is off into some interesting claims. Jagdtiger14 has decided its all the fault of the French for losing the war of 1870-1 and being somewhat annoyed at losing two of their provinces - where every indicator was that most wanted to remain in France. And in someway the viciousness of the partisan war/civil war in Serbia and Croatia from 1941-5 has been added to the reasons why the Serbs were the real utter, outstanding baddies of 1914 by Joe D.

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s. That left the inheritence of Burgundy disputed and led to the collapse of a unified kingdom between France and Germany along the Rhine. If she hadn't (or at least hadn't been accused of it), modern European history would have been very different?

I'll go back to my original response to Gary. There is blame aplenty to go around, but if it comes down to it, then yes, Germany bears the bulk of the responsibility....

For causing WW I, or simply prolonging it?

Why does Serbia get a pass for state-sponsored terrorism and Austria-Hungary for issuing Serbia an ultimatum no sovereign nation could accept while still retaining its sovereignty?

I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?'

The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'?

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I.

And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I.

So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage?

[warspite1]

Jagdtiger14

Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him)

I don’t think it’s funny that we disagree – I think it’s in one way unsurprising - given your anti-British bias - but in another way bizarre given the book’s dubious claims to be a history tome.

Look, suppose I write a book on Barbarossa. I write that Germany invaded the Soviet Union with 7,000 tanks and they were all PZKW IV’s. Regardless of anything else I write, that comment would surely make you believe that the author, and his conclusions, should be treated with extreme caution. What it wouldn’t do – regardless of whatever else was in the book – would make you think that the book qualifies for ‘Awesome’ territory (which you say the Harman book is). Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book?

I don’t want to side-track this thread with this book but I would love the chance to understand why you put it in the 'awesome category' given much of its content.

I would also love to understand why you rate the book given your comments:

I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep...

I think many historians are lazy, frankly... ...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read.

Dig deep? Harman dig deep? Okay…… As I say I would love to discuss further off line or a separate thread because I am at a loss to understand how you think this man dug deep for this book.

The guy has actually re-defined the word lazy with his lack of even the most basic research - according to him members of the Durham Light Infantry murdered 400 SS troops in cold blood after the battle. Funny that, the returns for the German division concerned show they had nowhere near 400 losses from all causes, let alone 400 missing..... and his 'I simply can't be bothered to explain' sections (he can't explain because many of the points he makes simply defy explanation).

Jadgdtiger14

I'll take first hand knowledge/impressions over historians any day.

Jagdtiger14

My cousin who fought in WWI did keep a diary beginning in 1900, most of it personal and local, but world events of the time were mentioned and became more detailed and prominent as it got closer to 1914. In addition to that I had my great grandmother who was 31 in 1914, but that was word of mouth (she was a real Kaiser/Prussia-hater). Both of them had the opinion/perspective that French anger/diplomacy led to WWI.

I don’t understand. My mum and dad were in WWII. At home they suffered the blitz, and my dad suffered the V1 and V2. My dad was in the army at the start of the war and my mum served as a nurse in Oz towards its end. Right, for personal stories of the areas in which they saw service and/or were affected I would welcome their insight. For a detailed historical perspective of Nazi Germany 1933-45 or The Pacific War 1937-45 I would no more consult my old mum and dad than I would the man in the moon…… I would prefer to read the writing of someone who has consulted, researched and analysed source documents and 1st hand accounts of those at the sharp end - You know, the records from someone who was actually at Munich in 1938 and not just someone who perhaps read a journalists take on what he'd heard second hand in a newspaper a few days after the event....

Jagdtiger14

I think those historians that put the majority blame on Germany in WWI have failed on a contextual level. You cant understand WWI without starting in the 1860's (1870 at the very least)...its seed was planted then.

loki100

edit, why stop at 1860, surely the root blame lies in Margaret for sleeping around in the early 1300s.

I understand to a degree what you mean Jagd. Understanding history – and not some little snapshot – is important. But yes, I totally agree with loki, that this approach just doesn’t add anything when trying to understand the level to which Germany were/were not responsible. It’s the old, “Yes your honour I did murder those 10 innocent women but, in holding me responsible for the crimes you fail to contextualise the poor upbringing I had”……

loki100

As Warspite knows, I tend to regard the British empire somewhat dubiously, and have been known to refer to the Union Jack as the 'butcher's apron'. So you can work out if I have any automatic pro-British bias from that?

Yes, I have met very few people on the forums – although sadly there are one or two – who hold the risible notion that ‘their’ country couldn’t possibly be responsible for any wrong doing ever. Interestingly I have said that Germany/Austria-Hungary are primarily responsible – and for that I get a charge of bias. Which kind of begs the question, why would I have a positive bias toward Serbia or Czarist Russia or even France?????

[wodin]

Yep. UK saw the new upcoming future superpower Germany with it's huge industrial strength and it's want to be a major player with overseas colonies as a threat, one which could knock the Empire of the top spot and UK couldn't have that..so they wanted to give Germany a proper good kicking before it did pose a major threat to the Empire.

National pride to the extreme, plus status and obviously wealth where the reasons everyone got stuck in when they did. Everyone just waiting for the right spark.

Funny how pre WW1 the Germanic nations where our allies usually against France. We just didn't like it when they nations became one ruled over by the militaristic Prussains.

In away it was Victoria's offspring and other family members etc having a massive domestic about who will have the best country.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

My cousin who fought in WWI did keep a diary beginning in 1900, most of it personal and local, but world events of the time were mentioned and became more detailed and prominent as it got closer to 1914. In addition to that I had my great grandmother who was 31 in 1914, but that was word of mouth (she was a real Kaiser/Prussia-hater). Both of them had the opinion/perspective that French anger/diplomacy led to WWI. Many interested in WWI fail to take that conflict in context going back to 1870 (Franco - Prussian war)...or just over look it. I think many historians are lazy, frankly...and you have to be extremely careful who/what you read. Preconceived notions sometimes become starting points which leads to information gathered to back them up...this happens in current day polling put out for public consumption.

Actually I am a fan of things British: 500 AD to Henry II, Henry V, QEI, Drake, up to French/Indian War (7 years war?)...after that, not so much (respect for Nelson of course, although I like Drake more). Oh, and tea[:)] Yes, I was talking about the British, and yes, I think it does apply equally to any French, German, American, etc...including North Korean.[:D] In answer as to why a Brit would enjoy a Brit historian (note I wrote "probably", not "only")...you answered above in regards to ones starting position.

Of course not every historian from a particular country has the exact same view or bias...note: A.J.P. Taylor or Nicholas Harman (funny you disagree with this British author and I agree with him). I think a certain establishment and simplistic viewpoint is taught in our high schools and universities (I know first hand at least in the US and Germany). Most students including those interested in history fall into the trap of just accepting something out of laziness or disinterest. Here it helps to have a contrarian personality and I enjoy historians that explore this and dig deep...not just the same old staid directions or automatic acceptance of certain conclusions. I think those historians that put the majority blame on Germany in WWI have failed on a contextual level. You cant understand WWI without starting in the 1860's (1870 at the very least)...its seed was planted then.

I'm allowing for the poll to prove me wrong[:D]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yep. UK saw the new upcoming future superpower Germany with it's huge industrial strength and it's want to be a major player with overseas colonies as a threat, one which could knock the Empire of the top spot and UK couldn't have that..so they wanted to give Germany a proper good kicking before it did pose a major threat to the Empire.

National pride to the extreme, plus status and obviously wealth where the reasons everyone got stuck in when they did. Everyone just waiting for the right spark.

Funny how pre WW1 the Germanic nations where our allies usually against France. We just didn't like it when they nations became one ruled over by the militaristic Prussains.

In away it was Victoria's offspring and other family members etc having a massive domestic about who will have the best country.


...

Yes it was a typical family domestic row gone wrong. In Glasgow known as a 'stairheid rammy' but at least ours tend to have a lower death toll at the end [;)]


More seriously, yes Britain wanted to set limits to German power (esp naval) and clearly Germany wasn't accepting those limits but I'm not sure it was a desire to give Germany a good kicking per se that drove British policy. Its similar to the old Marxist standard line that it was a war of Imperialist powers (even that is not really true) driven by imperialist disputes (for which there is scant evidence).

What stands up is there was a whole load of long standing grievances rattling around but none really explain the war that happened.

My personal take is that systems (diplomatic. social, economic, personal) all have a capacity to absorb adverse events. Some more than others. The European diplomatic system by 1914 was at the end of that capacity (my view). So when you have a stressed system, and some very poor judgements (step forward A-H and Germany) and the realities of railway timetables underpinnning mass mobilisation, you have the risk that a potentially localised war (A-H vs Serbia) rattles through the system and produces a general war.

To me that is the question to be answered. Europe had managed a century of crises with a fair few localised wars. Something was different in 1914 - and its not simply Serbia being belligerent or A-H dippy?

[warspite1]

Is there a Matrix poll question we can have on this?

You could have a look at the thread before this one - quite a few responses there.

tm.asp?m=3541193&mpage=1&key=austria-hungary

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




For causing WW I, or simply prolonging it?

Why does Serbia get a pass for state-sponsored terrorism and Austria-Hungary for issuing Serbia an ultimatum no sovereign nation could accept while still retaining its sovereignty?

I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?'

The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'?

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I.

And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I.

So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage?

warspite1

As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war.

Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support.

If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: loki100




I'm sorry but is anyone in this thread saying 'yes, well done Serbia. A powerful faction in your state, sponsored a nationalist terrorist group, murdered the heir to the throne of a neighbouring state that already had it in for you. Just what a fragile Europe, recovering diplomatically from the shocks of recent years, really needs to test out how robust is the international system of restraint?'

The debate is about cause and you seem to be doing little but claiming that the most recent incident must be the really fundamental reason - in part because the Serbs were ... well I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this respect except 'that is the sort of thing people like them do ... and they write using cyrillic so what do you expect'?

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I.

And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I.

So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage?

warspite1

As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war.

Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support.

If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised.

Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire.

Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.





RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

The two nations most immediately responsible for its cause are obviously Serbia by premeditated murder and Austria-Hungary for looking to teach them a lesson for assassinating its heir, which was the last peacetime incident before WW I.

And I never said or implied what you quoted, nor was the question what was the "fundamental reason" for WW I.

So does Germany take the blame for causing WW I, or just prolonging it and causing the most damage?

warspite1

As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war.

Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support.

If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised.

Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire.

Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions.

warspite1

No. Russia was supporting a minor country that was being declared war on by AH.

Elements in Serbia were responsible for the murders - it wasn't Serbian policy. AH should have ensured through their demands that the perpetrators be brought to justice - not wholesale invasion of the country.

Such restraint could well have won AH sympathy with other powers.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

As many have said, all nations must take some of the blame to varying degrees. But Germany takes the lion's share because without German backing the Austro-Hungarians cannot declare war on Serbia. Declaring war on Serbia is bad because the Russians will likely support that nation. Because of the alliance system this will lead to a general war.

Yes, the Austrians are hurting but its not as if there are not other options (as per the above). Leaders of nations need to take responsibility for their actions. As much as Austria are angry (with every right to be) if the action chosen to satisfy that anger means a Europe-wide conflagration then that is pretty irresponsible - and the only way that is possible is with German support.

If Germany tells Austria that they support them in every possible way - diplomatic, moral, economic - but they are not prepared to risk war then the problem remains localised.

Using your line of reasoning, if Germany takes the lion's share of responsibility for WW I for backing AH, then Russia is just as guilty for empowering small Serbia to take on an entire empire.

Neither AH or Serbia are puppet states of their backers, so they are each morally responsible for their respective diplomatic actions.

warspite1

No. Russia was supporting a minor country that was being declared war on by AH.

Elements in Serbia were responsible for the murders - it wasn't Serbian policy....

If it wasn't Serbian policy, what nation was paying the salary of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence, Col.Dragutin Dimitrijeviæ?

And the Russians and Serbs were allies long before AH declared war on Serbia.

"On 10 July 1807, the Serbian rebels under Karaðorðe signed an alliance with the Russian Empire during the First Serbian Uprising. After the Ottoman Empire had allied itself with Napoleon in late 1806, and was attacked by Russia and Britain, it sought to meet the demands of the Serbian rebels. At the same time, the Russians offered the Serbs aid and cooperation. The Serbs chose alliance with the Russians over autonomy under the Ottomans (as set by the 'Ièko's Peace'). Karaðorðe was to receive arms, and military and medical missions, which proved to be a turning point in the Serbian Revolution...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E ... ce_of_1807

[Orm]

Gentlemen, could we please reduce the long quote-chains in this thread? It makes it tougher for illiterates like me to follow this interesting discussion.