Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 4:49:52 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.
warspite1

What a shame it didn't get lost in the central clearing system. But regardless of AH presenting it for payment, it was up to the drawee bank to pay it or not. It's a shame that when it was presented to Kaiser Bank, the chief cashier didn't decide to bounce it.....If Germany wasn't intent on starting a war like some suggest he could have returned it "Words and Figures Differ"


Edit: Sorry about the awful banking references...


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/1/2017 4:54:05 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 61
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 7:30:04 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?


warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.




Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 62
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 7:41:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?


warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.




Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

warspite1

It's in the paragraph above the sentence you bolded.


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 63
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 10:08:11 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?


warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.




Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

warspite1

It's in the paragraph above the sentence you bolded.



To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 64
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/1/2017 10:34:21 PM   
bayonetbrant

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 5/17/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Options....

"Despite being part of the Triple Entente, Britain was not committed to going to war in 1914. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spent much of the summer of 1914 furiously trying to reassure Russia and Germany and prevent a war happening. Even when German troops invaded France and Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, Britain did not have to go to war.

"Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium's ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a 'scrap of paper.'"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

Is the word of a sovereign not worth the paper it's written on?
warspite1

[Earlier posts removed because the chain was becoming too long]

Yes options…

I note you have taken one instance – at the end of the process. Naturally the further down the process one is, the less room for manoeuvre.

Why not start at the beginning? Day 1 – the Archduke and his wife are assassinated. At this point Austria-Hungary can do a number of things. A declaration of war on Serbia is not the only solution – and in AH’s parlous state, it is not a sensible – or practicable - thing to do either. Forget Russia, with the AH in the state it’s in, beating Serbia alone is going to be difficult, and costly. Options, Choices.

At this time diplomatic and economic measures are possible. The Austrian emperor appealing to the Czar – one monarch to another - over the dangers of Regicide in an ever more unstable world may even have seen some sort of co-operation and toning down of Russia’s support. Options, Choices.

Despite what you say, at this stage there is no requirement for Germany to do anything. There is no war, no one is mobilising. Austria-Hungary is (rightfully) hurting having suffered a terrorist attack and Germany can understandably show moral support for her ally. But that is not what Germany does. Options, Choices.

Despite not having to do anything, Germany actively promotes AH declaring war on Serbia. Germany knows that Russia is unlikely to stand aside – and certainly won’t if Germany are seen to be pulling the strings – and yet, despite this, Berlin issues the ‘blank cheque’. Let’s be clear. With Russia likely to support Serbia, it is this action that makes the AH declaration of war on Serbia possible. Germany does not need to take this action but CHOOSES to do so. Yes, Options, Choices.

Remember Serbia did not want war – even knowing it has Russia giving support. How do we know this? Well AH gave a list of demands. In an act of desperation, Serbia accepted all bar one – a demand that AH knew she could not realistically concede to. AH could have accepted this Serbian humiliation but, armed with the blank cheque, she did not want anything but war. Yes, Options, Choices.

The above is why the majority of the blame for WWI sits with Germany (and of course Austria-Hungary) but even once the choice is made to attack Serbia, Russia could decide to stay out. You mention a ‘tinderbox of alliances’ but just as there was no requirement for Germany to give AH the blank cheque, so there was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia. An AH attack on Serbia does not commit Russia to action in Serbia’s defence. It was an action that Russia chose to take. Options, Choices.

Of course once we reach this point then alliances and (AJP Taylor’s famous railway timetables) come into play and at this point there is a feeling of unstoppable forces dictating events and the key individuals appearing almost powerless to stop a juggernaut that has built up too much momentum. But this only happened in the last few days before the outbreak of war.

There was also a whole month between the assassination and the AH attack on Serbia. If World War I was bound to happen because of the murders, what was happening during this time? Time gives both a chance for reflection and allow calmer heads to prevail, it also allows time for hawks in government and the military to spin their web of intrigue. And let’s be clear, when one talks about Germany or Austria-Hungary or Russia, or any of the major powers, there were those within who wanted war, there were sane minds who realised what it would mean and didn’t, and those, like the Kaiser whose bellicose nonsense helped stir the pot and then apparently wanted to back down. All these people – all these Options, Choices.

The assassinations did not cause World War I. They were a catalyst for what ultimately happened. But there was nothing pre-ordained about World War I from the moment Gavrilo Princip did the deed. This was not a case of automated processes driven by clauses within legal documents making Governments powerless to intervene. There were plenty of different paths that could have been taken, different choices made that could have satisfied AH's genuine wish for vengeance against those responsible for the assassination of their heir to the throne, but that didn't result in the useless and massive waste of life that World War I was.



catalyst: something that causes an important event to happen; a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected. In King's English, Serbia caused WW I, but unlike a chemical catalyst, it got itself deeply involved in an exothermic reaction well beyond its control.

And if Serbia didn't want war, what was the motive for its assassination of the heir to the AH throne? What did they expect would happen after they threw a match at a European powder keg?


warspite1

LOL - I'm not going to get into a war of words over what constitutes a precisely accurate similie. I like catalyst and will continue to use it in this regard. If you don't like catalyst then I can live with that. But for the purposes of this discussion let's park catalyst and make it clear without that word. Put it this way; the assassination of the Archduke and his wife was not a trigger - it did not start WWI.

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.

But I don't think they did want war, although again I think you miss the point. Let's just say they did and the plotters, with remarkable foresight, saw the defeat of the Central Powers in any war that they started (and of course without the crushing of Serbia, the death of, how many through disease and starvation)? That still does not mean that the major powers had no choices, no options and that one assassination = World War I. No ifs, no buts, no chance for anyone to do anything to stop it. Sorry it simply doesn't.




Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?

warspite1

It's in the paragraph above the sentence you bolded.



To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I have nothing to contribute; I just wanted to add another level to the quote ziggurat

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 65
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 5:41:06 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/2/2017 7:03:53 AM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 66
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 6:53:47 AM   
Drakken


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri
Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.


The Austrians obviously wanted war with Serbia, because Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans. Conrad von Hotzendorf was badgering Kaiser Franz Joseph to declare war on Serbia basically every day they were formally meeting, and for good reasons. Serbia, with its very existence, stirred nationalist dissenters among the differents nationalities in the Empire with this dream of a unified Serbian Empire, which included territories held by Austria, like Bosnia. Plus, their government was run by a number of thugs and regicides, which did not improve matters.

It is not war with Serbia that caused the First World War. It is in part the clumsy manner which Austria-Hungary went to it due to various factors like needing conscripts for harvest, the veto from Count Tisza and Hungary's cabinet, the sheer slowness of Habsburg government protocols, etc. Their mute silence for weeks after Franz Ferdinard's assassination, immediately followed by a sudden, rash, and totally unacceptable ultimatum at the end of July was astonishing to all European governments. Vienna's slowness in acting allowed time for Russia to mobilize, their obvious bad faith sickened all the other powers' chancelleries, and Serbia's genial reply succeeded in mustering international sympathy as the victim of Austrian bullying.

While Kaiser Wilhelm had a lot of flaws, he was an intelligent man and sometimes, despite his impulsiveness and his mercurial, insufferable temper, he assessed things right. Had the Austrian army listened to him and Bethman-Hollweg and did as they recommended, chances are it would have ended with a peace conference, not four years of all-out war. Vienna interpreted this "blank cheque" as doing as they pleased. Kaiser Wilhelm gives this "blank cheque" on the condition that Austria acts immediately and occupies Belgrade as a bargaining chip.

< Message edited by Drakken -- 9/2/2017 7:12:36 AM >

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 67
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 10:54:07 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakken

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri
Strikes me as showing Austria-Hungary caused it then. They cashed the blank cheque.


....

While Kaiser Wilhelm had a lot of flaws, he was an intelligent man and sometimes, despite his impulsiveness and his mercurial, insufferable temper, he assessed things right. Had the Austrian army listened to him and Bethman-Hollweg and did as they recommended, chances are it would have ended with a peace conference, not four years of all-out war. Vienna interpreted this "blank cheque" as doing as they pleased. Kaiser Wilhelm gives this "blank cheque" on the condition that Austria acts immediately and occupies Belgrade as a bargaining chip.


Wasn't Bismarck a check on the Kaiser's impulsiveness and temper before Wilhelm finally dismissed him?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 68
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 11:08:57 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?


Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 69
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 6:54:48 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?


Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.
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.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/2/2017 7:25:30 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 70
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 8:29:20 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?


Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.
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.






_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 71
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 8:33:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?


Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.
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/% 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.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/2/2017 8:53:35 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 72
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/2/2017 10:32:19 PM   
Drakken


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.



But then, the question is "what other options did Austria-Hungary have"? Let the Serbs exterminate the Habsburg bloodline and Austrian government officials? Seek the help of Russia as Protector of the Slavs so that they pressure the Serbs into stopping being silly, plainly revealing their impotence to the rest of Europe? Let them even stir more trouble inside Austrian-Hungarian borders?

Austria-Hungary, as a declining Great Power, was facing a tremendous loss of face if they let that assassination allegedly supported by a third-rate power, perceived as barely civilized, totally unanswered. Plus, lots of nationalities - the first of them being Hungary - was only looking for sign of weaknesses to pull even more rights and privileges from the Vienna government. Inaction being out-of-question, this forced the Habsburg cabinet to compensate by a firm, uncompromizing stand against Serbia - to show Europe that while being the fifth-wheel in Europe balance of power, they were still strong enough to not let such an insult slide without resolute action.


< Message edited by Drakken -- 9/2/2017 10:41:02 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 73
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 3:32:09 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

Austria-Hungary, as a declining Great Power, was facing a tremendous loss of face if they let that assassination allegedly supported by a third-rate power, perceived as barely civilized, totally unanswered.


Why does it have to be one of two extremes? War or ‘totally unanswered’.

quote:

Inaction being out-of-question, this forced the Habsburg cabinet to compensate by a firm, uncompromizing stand against Serbia - to show Europe that while being the fifth-wheel in Europe balance of power, they were still strong enough to not let such an insult slide without resolute action.


Firm, uncompromising and resolute. None of those words apply to Austria-Hungary for most of July of 1914. Only after waiting a month to take action, did Austria-Hungary finally act in such fashion, after it had given time for other powers to harden their own attitudes.

quote:

But then, the question is "what other options did Austria-Hungary have"?


Maybe they could have been more circumspect in their dealings with the Serbs and the Serb minority within their own borders? Visiting Sarajevo on St Vitus’ Day was not clever…

As I’ve said in previous posts, I don’t blame the rulers of AH for being angry and feeling the need to do something. But there was no conclusive proof that the Serbian Government were behind the atrocity – even so AH could have given Serbia a reasonable - but still humiliating - ultimatum without resorting to war.

And they actually presented an ultimatum to Serbia that even the Russians told Serbia to accept and the Serbs were willing to accept bar one point. Austria-Hungary chose to ignore any form of compromise and instead, despite being unprepared for war, despite understanding by then that the Russians (and so probably the French) would react, the Emperor Franz Joseph chose war.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/3/2017 7:30:56 AM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 74
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 8:21:15 AM   
Orm


Posts: 14561
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
If I read the discussions right about the cause of WWI, then most people seem to blame the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

And when I read discussions about the cause of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, most of the same people blame Prussia here.

And this I can not understand. I must have misunderstood something.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 75
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 8:42:44 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

If I read the discussions right about the cause of WWI, then most people seem to blame the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

And when I read discussions about the cause of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, most of the same people blame Prussia here.

And this I can not understand. I must have misunderstood something.
warspite1

I cannot say anything about the war of 1870 as I have yet to read about it in anything but the highest level terms. May be a case of history being written by the winner or maybe those 'people' are right. Sorry I don't know


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 76
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 8:54:30 AM   
rico21

 

Posts: 1443
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline
I can say something about the war of 1870. May be a case of history being written by the winner or maybe those 'people' are right. But facts are here.
- France is isolated and lost the war.
- France gets closer to England who seen rise military power prussian.
- Next time in 1914, France is not alone.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 77
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 9:03:22 AM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
The Franco Prussian War was one of Bismarck's wars to unify Germany. His editing of the Ems telegram had the desired effect of provoking the French into a declaration of war.

There is a scenario covering the Franco Prussian War in Ageod's Pride of Nations.


edit:

Some might find this from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica interesting https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Franco-German_War


One of the advantages of the 1911 encyclopedia of course is that it was written before the events of 1914 ! It also has a good section on the campaigns of Napoleon if that era is of interest. And the English Civil War.

< Message edited by altipueri -- 9/3/2017 9:22:49 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 78
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 1:23:43 PM   
Drakken


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

If I read the discussions right about the cause of WWI, then most people seem to blame the two central powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

And when I read discussions about the cause of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, most of the same people blame Prussia here.

And this I can not understand. I must have misunderstood something.



The guilt of Germany and her allies is stated in black and white in the Treaty of Versailles. The blame is official and lead to France and Britain driving a very hard bargain for peace: if they said no, war resumed and Germany would have been torn into pieces. Hence why there was a vested interest to blame Germany and A-H for starting WWI, and paint especially the former as an historical warmonger, when facts are more greyish upon scrutiny.

quote:

PART VIII.

REPARATION.

SECTION l.

GENERAL PROVISIONS.

ARTICLE 231.

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.


< Message edited by Drakken -- 9/3/2017 1:25:14 PM >

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 79
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 6:28:14 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

The guilt of Germany and her allies is stated in black and white in the Treaty of Versailles.


As anyone who has an interest in history knows, history is written by the winners and Germany and Austria-Hungary lost.

However, that does not mean that the verdict was necessarily wrong of course. 'More greyish upon scrutiny' sure, and at least a degree of blame can be levelled at all major powers. But ultimately, although Versailles can be seen as being a poor treaty, there is no doubt in my mind that Austria-Hungary - and particularly Germany - should take the lions share of the blame for the start of the war.

_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Drakken)
Post #: 80
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 7:52:52 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1644
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 81
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/3/2017 8:28:29 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 33675
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

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??

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/3/2017 9:54:10 PM >


_____________________________

22nd November 1944 - The British Pacific Fleet is born (temporary avatar changes to commemorate the ships and aircraft).



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 82
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 7:10:10 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1644
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
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. 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








_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 83
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 11:00:16 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Joe D asked:

quote:

Well, then what was the point of Serbia's clandestine assassination plot? What did they hope to gain by killing a key member of AH royalty? And did they really expect to get away scot-free with such a high-profile murder?


quote:

To avoid any confusion would you mind cutting and pasting that paragraph by itself as there are several bolded texts.


I wrote previously:

What was Serbia's motive if 'they' didn't want all out war? Well, given that AH was a total mess, I am guessing that a) they may have believed that AH would have to suck it up as they were not strong enough to go to war (thereby lowering their stock even more), b) the action would at least help to de-stabilise the succession to the AH throne and thereby continue to add to the crumbling Empire's woes and possibly create a power vacuum that the Serbs could exploit, and c) I raised this point previously; Not everyone in every country was of like mind. There were no doubt Serbian hotheads who would welcome a war and the chaos (and of course potential opportunity) that that would bring to AH (and Serbia). What is your understanding of "state-sponsored terrorism" in a country like Serbia - that bedrock of democracy? But if those in charge wanted war then they could have simply told AH to go do something that's probably impossible (although personally I've never tried it). They didn't.


And to add:

Because of what we know happened, its easy (but wrong) to think that killing the Archduke = guaranteed war. But that would not have been the case to those that may have plotted for such dealing at the time and with no such benefit of hindsight.

As shown over many previous threads, there was so much that needed to happen for Serbia to get a war - Austro-Hungarian wish for it to happen (as opposed to other options they could have chosen) to start with, and German interference that of course was absolutely required to make it happen even if that was AH's desire.

But the biggest requirement was that, with no formal alliance in place the plotters are simply assuming - and gambling with the lives of the Serbian people - that even in the absence of any formal agreement to do so - Russia will definitely join in. Maybe not the biggest assumption in the world, but not guaranteed - or did the plotters have a hotline to the Czar?


Apparently Serbia was willing to gamble with every nation's lives, not just their own. Drakken pointed out that "Serbia was indeed a very destabilizing power in the Balkans," one that the "crazy quilt" AH empire couldn't long abide. But guaranteed or not, the assassination of AH's heir apparent was the last peacetime crisis that empire faced as it was broken-up after the war, furthering Serbia's goal of Balkan destabilization. So in a "real politik" sense, Serbia's state-sponsored assassination proved to be a success.
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/% 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.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 84
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 11:18:51 AM   
loki100


Posts: 4228
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/4/2017 11:21:51 AM >


_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 85
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 12:03:50 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 354
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
God is an Englishman, so it is all his fault. :)

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 86
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 12:13:10 PM   
rico21

 

Posts: 1443
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 87
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 12:14:03 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3901
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

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?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 88
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 1:43:04 PM   
loki100


Posts: 4228
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


quote:

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'?

_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 89
RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited - 9/4/2017 2:27:01 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 843
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

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. 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








Yes. You are right on the money.

< Message edited by Capitaine -- 9/4/2017 2:28:58 PM >

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who caused WW1 - revisited Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172