Historical Finger Pointing, Issue I: World War I

[KrazyHorse]

Roosians. They'd never stopped eyeing the Sick Man of Europe...

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

And I thought the US presidents had more loyalty to their country...


Russia (probably) still could have avoided the war. Germany was bound by treaty to Austria-Hungary, and England and France to Russia. So Germany's declaration of war to (I think it was thus) Russia, England and France just was a matter of logic and being faithful to the alliance. Germany had to declare war on France to gain a few days. And if you look at the geographical situation, the violation of Belgium's neutrality was also more than natural (after all, Belgium was Germany until 1792 or so ... ).
In my earlier post, I more stressed the readiness to go to war, simply because I think it gives the more realistic picture.
About the US: Even if they had not the power to make the war not happen, it was their free decision to enter the war (first economically, and then militaric).

Germany did not really enter the war to defend Austria-Hungary; they strongly pushed Austria to start the war in the first place. There's the "blank check" mentioned above and more generally they had been pushing Austria to be more aggressive for years. They assured Austria they could handle Russia and France and were in fact eager for the chance.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Russia (probably) still could have avoided the war. Germany was bound by treaty to Austria-Hungary, and England and France to Russia. So Germany's declaration of war to (I think it was thus) Russia, England and France just was a matter of logic and being faithful to the alliance.

Any of the four nations I mentioned had the ability to prevent the war simply by not doing what they did. The Austrians could have let the assassination of a rather unpopular Archduke slide with only minor concessions from the Serbs. The Serbs could have cracked down on the terrorist groups, and accepted Austria's ultimatum. Russia could have told Serbia that they were at fault and to accept the conditions the Hapsburgs imposed. And Germany could have told the Austrians to chill and not anger the Russians.

[orange]

How the hell could you forget Turkey?

[Timexwatch]

Because they were pretty irrelevant.

[Alexander's Horse]

Obviously most of you aren't trained historians.

The historical argument is pretty much dead for about 30 years although it fizzles on a bit. Germany was responsible. Our thanks to German Professor Fritz Fischer for pretty much settling the argument with his exhaustive research of the German archives.

No Consensus Yet on the
Origins of the Great War

By Rob Ruggenberg



Don't be fooled: there is no such thing as an historical consensus on the origins of the Great War. But there is something coming close to it.

This happened before. In the past historians also almost reached a sort of mutual agreement on a revisionist interpretation which developed in the 1920's. Many years and thousands of studies later this interpretation is now, slowly, giving way for a new one.

This older view held that the war was the result of a conflict between imperialist states. It was preceded by a naval race, a great increase in armaments and rivalry between world empires for control of markets.

There was, it was argued, little to choose between the policies of the great powers. War broke out because everyone misjudged the consequences of the crisis created by the assassination of the Austrian Arch-Duke in Sarajevo.

In this version Austria-Hungary, for its unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia, and France and Russia, for their hasty decisions to mobilize, were judged to be the powers most responsible for starting the war. Germany and Britain attempted to find a compromise but were drawn into a conflict which neither imagined would last more than a few months.

Challenged
This view of the origins of the war was challenged by the German historian Fritz Fischer. To the chagrin of other German intellectuals, who preferred the theory that the other countries involved in World War I were at fault, Fischer's concluded that the Germans under the Kaiser had expansionist goals in the war. Writing in the 1960's, in the aftermath of the Second World War, Fischer argued that leading groups in Germany - including the Kaiser - sought a war which would establish German control over much of Europe.

Germany, Fischer insisted in his book "Griff nach der Weltmacht (Grab at Worldpower, translated as "Germany's Aims in World War I"), deliberately encouraged the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to declare war on Serbia and actively sought war with France, hoping to repeat the victory of 1870, before dealing with Russia. Britain's small army could be ignored because the decisive engagements would be over within a few months.

Fischer based his material on the so called September plans and pointed out that there was a continuancy in German planning. His book was called Griff nach der Weltmacht (Grab at Worldpower).

His view of the origins of the Great War has not gone unchallenged. His most important opponents were Zara Steiner and Luigi Albertine. They made Fischer's book the subject of numerous discussions over the years, with Fischer sticking to his conclusions , even as Steiner and Albertine (and others) claimed he took historical quotes out of context.

Today many historians would agree with the general outlines of the Fischer thesis. Fischer died in December 1999, 91 years old (other books he wrote were "War of Illusions" in 1969 and "Hitler was Not an Accident" in 1992.)

Ironic...
Canadian leading military historian prof. Terry Copp, who wrote most of the summary above, adds that this 'new consensus' must seem ironic to allied First World War veterans, ,,...because it presents the origins of the war much as the people of 1914 understood them."

The scary part is Fischer shows that Imperial Germany's aims in WWI weren't much different from Hitler's in WWII. WWII was really a continuation of WWI.

[Duddha]

But weeks before the war started the Germans tried to back down but the Russians had already mobilized and refused. I voted for Russia.

This was a family fight. If you look it up, you will find that most of the European heads of state were related to Queen Victoria of England. (Grandsons and Great-grandsons)
Someone in the family should have said we are having a family reunion and see if we can stop this fighting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were all to blame. Horse wishes the close the debate on Fischer's analysis, but the case is by no means closed. Not by a long shot. Fischer's analysis is flawed because Germany was not the only state with expansionist goals. The problem is the piling on Germany.

Nobody cared about the Archduke. He was one of those guys who would show up to a function and people would wonder what he would be doing there.

Seeing as he was the heir to the throne, I think he was a biiiit important.

The blame lays at Russia's feet. Serbia was about to accept Austria's ultimatum. They were just about to sign, when the Russkies sent a telegram saying they'd back the Serbians no matter what. This led to a change in the outward role of the Serbs to belligerant rather than accepting.

Of course if the Austrians decided on the Halt-In-Belgrade Plan after this, perhaps Russia wouldn't have declared war. Of course some blame Germany for pushing the Austrians not to do so.... and so on and so on.

Of course the Brits did not act in their natural role as a balancer. They should have manifest their committment to oppose Austria and Germany in the beginning as they did for over 200 years before.

In conclusion all are to blame, but if I was to rank them:

Russia
Austria
UK
Germany
Serbia
France

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
While I'm on the subject, the Kaiser didn't help any. Wilhelm was, by all accounts, not all that bright, weak in resolve, and (this is for Boris Gudonov) rumored to be quite gay. He had eratic mood swings and failed to take diplomacy seriously.

There was never any serious suspicious that Wilhelm was gay. What happened was the the German Social Democrats used their party newspaper tp accuse Germany's wealthiest industrialist, Alfred Krupp, of having sex with young men in Capri (partly as a tactic to force the repeal of Paragraph 175, the German law against homosexual acts). Krupp ended up committing suicide, and the Kaiser decried it as "intellectual murder," as Krupp was a friend of his.

Anyway, it started a period where the most common political smear tactic was to accuse opponents of being homosexual. The scandals came to head beginning in 1905, when the Kaiser's best friend, Phillip zu Eulenberg, was accused of being a homosexual by a recently-dismissed Counselor of the Kaiser, von Holstein. Eulenberg had long been a pacifist, and Holstein a military hawk, so Holstein believed Eulenberg responsible for his dismissal. Holstein got a political ally who ran a newspaper to publish a charge that Eulenberg was the lover of General von Moltke, the commandant of Berlin. In the meantime, an extremist gay activist named Brand also accused the German Chancellor of having an affair with his male secretary.

The accusations resulted in several libel suits. Moltke, after an initial acquittal of his case, won his libel suit against the newspaper owner, who spent 4 months in jail. Brand was also found guilty of libel and served 6 months. Then Eulenberg, oddly enough, was charged with perjury. However, he fell ill during the trial, which was postponed several times, for years, until Eulenberg finally died.

During all this, the Kaiser had a nervous collapse. He never believed the accusations, but his court was permanently disrupted by the matter. There is some speculation that the disruption was successful in pushing Wilhelm away from the moderates like Eulenberg and towards the war hawks who wanted war with France.

Regardless, there was never any accusation Wilhelm himself was homosexual, nor is their any historical evidence to support it. Eulenberg and Moltke, however, most likely were.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The archduke was one of the cooler heads in the Austro- Hungarian Empire. A lot of times, everyone in the monarchy wanted to go and wipe out the serbs, but Ferdinand always was against them. Kinda ironic that he was later shot by the Serbs. They had cut their own throats.
As usual, there is enough blame to go around
1. The German - England naval race
2. Colonial tensions in Morocco, etc.
3. The whole alliance system
4. Extreme nationalism

[Alexander's Horse]

You guys are just a bunch of ignorant putzes. The Fischer thesis is the only game in town and the historical argument has ended, oh about 30 freakin years ago!

Germany was responsible for WWI.

Go and read Fischer's definitive book - you only need read the first 70 or so pages and a very good read too - very exciting. At every stage Germany is behind the scenes pushing for war.

[Timexwatch]

What? I already blamed Germany and Germany Junior (Austria) for it!

[Alexander's Horse]

Smart boy

I think the main thing this thread shows is what a piece of crap the American education system is. Fischer published the definitive account of the origins of World War I, clearly showing Germany's culpability, in 1961 and yet most of the self appointed "experts" commenting here haven't even heard of Professor Fischer and are regurgitating discredited pre 61 theories.

1961 was over 40 years ago people

Next thing these same palukas will be telling me Hitler came to power because the Versailles Treaty was too harsh

But this thread is fun to see all the crackpot historical myths you people believe.

No wonder we're on the brink of war again

[Duddha]

Alexander, there are other authorities on how WWI began besides Fischer. Why not pick up my main authority, The First World War by A.J.P Taylor. Different perspectives are helpful.

[Alexander's Horse]

A.J.P. Taylor was a fine historian, one of the best in English and I highly recommend any of his work, including on WWI. Although I think Taylor's use of irony would be lost on most of the people commenting here, especially the Americans with their one dimensional understanding of English.

But at the end of the day Taylor's work really re-inforces Fischer's. He shows Germany was ready to launch an offensive war for European dominance and did so when the opportunity presented itself in July/August 1914.

[Bosh]

Adalbertus: England was not bound by any treaty obligations to join on the Russian and French side, one of the main reasons they joined was Lord Grey's astoundingly incompetant diplomatic policy in which he never made it clear that the UK would declare war on Germany if Germany violated Belgium's netrality.

And Belgium was NOT part of germany, as Flanders it was traditionally part of France until the Austrians got their hands on it when they inheirited all the Burgundians' land....

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boshko
Adalbertus: England was not bound by any treaty obligations to join on the Russian and French side, one of the main reasons they joined was Lord Grey's astoundingly incompetant diplomatic policy in which he never made it clear that the UK would declare war on Germany if Germany violated Belgium's netrality.

Ah well this where all this Germany wasn't to blame crap falls apart whether you believe Fischer or not. Germany had signed a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, which they violated without a second thought. In fact their whole war plan revolved around doing so.

Its rather perverse to blame Grey for Germany's flagrant violation of a solemn treaty. It never entered Grey's mind that Germany would not honour its obligations on Belgium.

Meanwhile in Berlin, Bethman Hollweg called the Belgian treaty a "scrap of paper", which shows the mentality of the Kaiser's government. Not much different to Hitler and Ribbentrop when it came to honouring international agreements. And you're saying these gangsters were innocent of causing the war? LOL.

[TheStinger]

Foreign and Prime ministers who could decide policy on without reference to their respective parliaments or people were to blame.

Although Britain, France and Germany were democratic , the people in charge did not think the people had any role in deciding foreign policy.

When people did start to influence foreign policy as in France and Britain in the 1930's we got appeasment because of the memories of WW1.

[notyoueither]

The Romanovs (not Russia). I can't blame a nation for the stupidity of a hereditary ruler who knew that mobilising against the Hapsburgs meant war with the Kaiser... and the dominoes kept falling.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Foreign and Prime ministers who could decide policy on without reference to their respective parliaments or people were to blame.

Although Britain, France and Germany were democratic , the people in charge did not think the people had any role in deciding foreign policy.

When people did start to influence foreign policy as in France and Britain in the 1930's we got appeasment because of the memories of WW1.

Oh God - more bollocks.

The outbreak of war in 1914 was greeted with wild popular enthusiasm throughout Europe. There is even a photo which shows a young Adolf Hitler cheering the news in Vienna.

Parliaments were consulted on the outbreak of war. Even the German Social Democratic party, which might have been expected to oppose war, infamously voted for war credits.

So much for your theory

[Adalbertus]

Go and read Fischer's definitive book - you only need read the first 70 or so pages and a very good read too - very exciting. At every stage Germany is behind the scenes pushing for war.

AH, this is definitely only part of the truth. You also can lie by not telling everything. I've seen a French book, published several months before WWI, which was full of hatred and proving that the regions France lost 1871 were "genuinely French". In fact, the border between France and the Holy Roman Empire was quite constant along the Meuse over 500 years (the time the French kings needed to defeat their own dukes, including the one of Normandy). In 1552, France started the problems by occupying Metz, Toul and Verdun.
France was eager to go to war in 1914. As much as anyone else who participated.

[Alexander's Horse]

We talking about who caused the war. Germany caused the war.

[Frozzy]

The problem with World War 1 is that the trigger effect wasn't just in loyalty for they're allies. Imperialist countries just wanted more land overseas. If they could cut another imperialist down to size, so be it. You had allies in World Way One, but not because you liked them

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Oh God - more bollocks.

The outbreak of war in 1914 was greeted with wild popular enthusiasm throughout Europe. There is even a photo which shows a young Adolf Hitler cheering the news in Vienna.

Parliaments were consulted on the outbreak of war. Even the German Social Democratic party, which might have been expected to oppose war, infamously voted for war credits.

So much for your theory

Its not bollocks, people were spoon fed patriotic nonsense by their governments, media and in the UK's case the education system. Foreign policy was decided by the elite ruling class and people were conditioned to belive that all wars and other foreign adventures were good for the country.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We talking about who caused the war. Germany caused the war.

Not many of merit in acedemia or other real scholars would support that conclusion. There have been many books.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not many of merit in acedemia or other real scholars would support that conclusion. There have been many books.

What are you talking about? That IS the orthodox academic view you moron. Germany caused World War I.

[Tolls]

I actually went for Austria...

Germany was the direct cause of the war in July, no disputing that...but Austria was the one that completely ballsed up the political balance in 1908 by annexing Bosnia-Herzigovina, and in the process scrapping the 1878 treaty (Berlin?) that had at least sort of provided some stability in the Balkans. It was this that set in motion the train of events leading to the assassination of the Archduke (how many bombs did they have to throw at him?), which gave Germany the chance to egg Austria on...(is that torturous enough for everyone?)

Oh...the other reason I went for them was just to be awkward...and I was bored of always voting for Germany.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


What are you talking about? That IS the orthodox academic view you moron. Germany caused World War I.

Nice citation there.

[notyoueither]

Orthodox in 1934 maybe. You gotta get new text books down there.