[QUOTE] [Germany] alone had power to halt the descent to disaster at any time in July 1914 by withdrawing its "blank cheque" which offered support to Austria for its invasion of Serbia.
I'm afraid I am unconvinced by the argument that Serbia was a rogue state which deserved its nemesis at Austria's hands. And I do not believe Russia wanted a European war in 1914 - its leaders knew that it would have been in a far stronger position to fight two years later, having completed its rearmament programme. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Serbia bore the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of WW1. Serbian nationalism and expansionism were profoundly disruptive forces and Serbian backing for the Black Hand terrorists was extraordinarily irresponsible. Austria-Hungary bore only slightly less responsibility for its panic over-reaction to the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne.
France encouraged Russia's aggressiveness towards Austria-Hungary and Germany encouraged Austrian intransigence. Britain failed to mediate as it had done in the previous Balkan crisis out of fear of Germany's European and global ambitions - a fear that was not entirely rational since Britain had clearly won the naval arms race by 1910. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Relatively common before 1914, assassinations of royal figures did not normally result in war. But Austria-Hungary's military hawks - principal culprits for the conflict - saw the Sarajevo assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Bosnian Serb as an excuse to conquer and destroy Serbia, an unstable neighbour which sought to expand beyond its borders into Austro-Hungarian territories. Serbia, exhausted by the two Balkan wars of 1912-13 in which it had played a major role, did not want war in 1914.
Broader European war ensued because German political and military figures egged on Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, to attack Serbia. This alarmed Russia, Serbia's supporter, which put its armies on a war footing before all options for peace had been fully exhausted. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]WW1 did not break out by accident or because diplomacy failed. It broke out as the result of a conspiracy between the governments of imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary to bring about war, albeit in the hope that Britain would stay out. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Germany gave Austria unconditional support in its actions, again fully aware of the likely consequences. Germany sought to break up the French-Russian alliance and was fully prepared to take the risk that this would bring about a major war. Some in the German elite welcomed the prospect of beginning an expansionist war of conquest. The response of Russia, France and later Britain were reactive and defensive. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324[/url]
I mainly say that if Napoleon didn't cause hundreds of states to cease existing during his wars, there would be a decentralized Germany and Italy rather than an empire and Austria would have still been dozens of independent states that were connected by family rather than one empire.
Napoleon basically caused European power to shift from the edges to the center and as a result a huge arms buildup which led to African colonialism, Breakoff of Latin America from Spain and etc. And this shift in the balance of power led to things like the Crimean wars which offset russia and just a whole load of bullshit.
I personally think that if you go too far back in your interpretations they become meaningless - There were always other opportunities to prevent war. Sure, its useful for background information/long term reasons but it shouldn't be the main argument IMO
britain was very flip floppy and who they would back if war broke out was very unclear, germany didn't even expect britain to declare war
Wouldn't it be ironic if finger pointing was to blame?
I still can't believe that most of the powerful world leaders at the time were loosely related.
That blew me away in my modern history class at high school.
Wilhelm II, was related to Queen Victoria... and his second cousin was Tsar Nicholas II. :v:
Germany, UK, and Russia.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887035]I mainly say that if Napoleon didn't cause hundreds of states to cease existing during his wars, there would be a decentralized Germany and Italy rather than an empire and Austria would have still be dozens of independent states that were connected by family rather than one empire.
Napoleon basically caused European power to shift from the edges to the center and as a result a huge arms buildup which led to African colonialism, Breakoff of Latin America from Spain and etc. And this shift in the balance of power led to things like the Crimean wars which offset russia and just a whole load of bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Nice hypothesis, shame if someone were to test it.
Blaming napoleon for everything that happened after he died is an insane stretch of pseudohistory.
German and Italian nationalism were actually things before the Napoleonic wars. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was doomed anyways due to its fragmented nature, uneven economic development, the rise of nationalism and the general incompetence of monarchies.
Also the industrial revolution is more to blame for the power shift, since Germany and Poland have plentiful coal and iron deposits and have good sea access and well educated, trained, literate populations. African colonialism had been happening for centuries by the time of Napoleon anyways.
The Ottomans were already in decline before Napoleon as well, not to mention that Spain was gradually losing control over her colonies.
TL;dr you have a crackpot crap theory.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43887136]Nice hypothesis, shame if someone were to test it.
Blaming napoleon for everything that happened after he died is an insane stretch of pseudohistory.
German and Italian nationalism were actually things before the Napoleonic wars. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was doomed anyways due to its fragmented nature, uneven economic development, the rise of nationalism and the general incompetence of monarchies.
Also the industrial revolution is more to blame for the power shift, since Germany and Poland have plentiful coal and iron deposits and have good sea access and well educated, trained, literate populations. African colonialism had been happening for centuries by the time of Napoleon anyways.
The Ottomans were already in decline before Napoleon as well, not to mention that Spain was gradually losing control over her colonies.
TL;dr you have a crackpot crap theory.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that Napoleon died during the congress of Vienna?
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887204]I didn't know that Napoleon died during the congress of Vienna?[/QUOTE]
Politically he was already dead. Putting Napoleon up as the reason why Germany unified is utter nonsense.
See dissolution of the HRE, the weakening of Italian states and the merging of smaller states to bigger powers during the confederation of the rhine and after.
Germany went from 360 sovereign states to 38.
Heightening the British empire through transfer of most Dutch colonial possessions to the British. Among these being South Africa, their India provinces, Sri Lanka, etc.
You want me to keep going?
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
I'm just saying. Much easier to unify 38 states than 360.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887408]See dissolution of the HRE, the weakening of Italian states and the merging of smaller states to bigger powers during the confederation of the rhine and after.[/quote]
Dissolution of the HRE meant little. By that time it was already dead. (Given the 30 years war, the HRE effectively had ceased to mean anything).
The unification of Germany is largely because of the massive expansion of railways, the customs union, the policies of Bismarck, the Prussian state, not to mention German nationalism (with it started by the idealists). Saying Napoopan did this is misleading and ignores a great deal of German history.
And ignoring that he was the catalyst to the congress of vienna is ignoring 18th-19th century politics and the grasping onto the idea of a balance of power.
[QUOTE]Serbia bore the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of WW1. Serbian nationalism and expansionism were profoundly disruptive forces and Serbian backing for the Black Hand terrorists was extraordinarily irresponsible. Austria-Hungary bore only slightly less responsibility for its panic over-reaction to the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne.
France encouraged Russia's aggressiveness towards Austria-Hungary and Germany encouraged Austrian intransigence. Britain failed to mediate as it had done in the previous Balkan crisis out of fear of Germany's European and global ambitions - a fear that was not entirely rational since Britain had clearly won the naval arms race by 1910.[/QUOTE]
I think that this is the most agreeable out of all of them.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887538]And ignoring that he was the catalyst to the congress of vienna is ignoring 18th-19th century politics and the grasping onto the idea of a balance of power.[/QUOTE]
You explicitly stated he was to blame for this:
[quote]I mainly say that if Napoleon didn't cause hundreds of states to cease existing during his wars, there would be a decentralized Germany and Italy rather than an empire and Austria would have still been dozens of independent states that were connected by family rather than one empire.
Napoleon basically caused European power to shift from the edges to the center and as a result a huge arms buildup which led to African colonialism, Breakoff of Latin America from Spain and etc. And this shift in the balance of power led to things like the Crimean wars which offset russia and just a whole load of bullshit.[/quote]
This is utter garbage.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43887335]Politically he was already dead. Putting Napoleon up as the reason why Germany unified is utter nonsense.[/QUOTE]
He was a reason for it, maybe not THE reason but certainly was a reason.
imagine how history would have been different if Britain had backed Germany though,
my interpretation of the sides is that if Germany hadnt wanted a war with France the Serbian conflict would have been minor and insignificant but it happened
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43887716]He was a reason for it, maybe not THE reason but certainly was a reason.[/QUOTE]
wasn't it bizmark that united Germany though
Germany is solely to blame. They had massive ambitions of conquest in Europe. This led them to support a terrible ally in their ridiculous war just so they had an excuse to take out Russia and France.
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;43887778]imagine how history would have been different if Britain had backed Germany though,
my interpretation of the sides is that if Germany hadnt wanted a war with France the Serbian conflict would have been minor and insignificant but it happened[/QUOTE]
This exactly.
Am I in the mass debate section?
[QUOTE=Sableye;43887778]imagine how history would have been different if Britain had backed Germany though,
my interpretation of the sides is that if Germany hadnt wanted a war with France the Serbian conflict would have been minor and insignificant but it happened
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
wasn't it bizmark that united Germany though[/QUOTE]
Without the Congress of Vienna, Prussia would still be a German Major, but there would be other ones as well. They annexed western Germany almost completely after the congress of Vienna, going from an Eastern state with some western bits of territory to owning nearly all of western and central germany.
Making it so they had to get 38 states to support unification rather than 360 is a huge deal.
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;43887815]Germany is solely to blame. They had massive ambitions of conquest in Europe. This led them to support a terrible ally in their ridiculous war just so they had an excuse to take out Russia and France.
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
This exactly.[/QUOTE]
Nah man. It's a bit of everyone. France never lets up a grudge and they had a boner for Alase Lorraine even though it was barely french, but they wanted to get back for their humiliation in the Franco Prussian War.
Britain didn't want Germany to become a naval super power. Russia didn't want Germany to become a supersuper power. Austria annexing Bosnia in earlier almost caused World war 1, but everyone backed off because Germany was supporting Austria. It would have broken out sooner or later but the Alliances jumping in was a bad deal.
what really made ww1 a "world war" was when england decided to join the pot even though they werent bound to any treaties (at least to my knowledge) unlike serbia with russia and germany with austria and france with russia etc
people who blame germany are wrong. germany was the least militaristic western nation at the time. since waterloo to the start of ww1, germany has had the least amount of wars of the powers in europe. Britain had had 10 wars... germany 3. And germany only was involved in 1 war about territorial gain.
yeah i blame england
[QUOTE=Kentz;43888035]what really made ww1 a "world war" was when england decided to join the pot even though they werent bound to any treaties (at least to my knowledge) unlike serbia with russia and germany with austria and france with russia etc[/QUOTE]
I think we had a treaty with Belgium to uphold their neutrality in case of invasion, Treaty of London 1839 iirc
[QUOTE=Laputa;43888127]I think we had a treaty with Belgium to uphold their neutrality in case of invasion, Treaty of London 1839 iirc[/QUOTE]
yeah thats true
i dont even think germany declared war on belgium though, they just marched their soldiers through the country to get to france. england would probably have violated belgium neutrality if germany didnt so
edit: nvm just learned that both germany and england guaranteed belgian neutrality
Marching soldiers through a country without any agreement is an act of war regardless. If you are seriously suggesting it didn't violate the treaty then that is just ridiculous.
Austria wanted to subjugate serbia. When diplomacy failed they intentionally sent unreasonable terms to them knowing they would reject the ultimatum. Germany agreed to join in because hey, let's pick up some land alongside the inevitable war.
France didn't like that and hopped in, Russia joined in as allies. Germany disregarded the Belgian independence and Britain joined in.
After that it was everyone scrambling for getting any support from any country they could.
The reason is a bunch of countries tripping on power, not much more or less.
This is a stupid analysis that doesn't take into account the balance of power, what happened up until 1914 and how powers saw each other at the time.
No European nations went to war from 188...ish to 1914 because they followed the rationale of the deterrence logic.
"If I am more powerful than he is then he should not strike me because he would fear a counter strike that would in change destroy him"
So they kept massing weapons and navies in order to avoid being weaker than the other side (Cold war, anyone?) and to avoid being attacked. If someone had less that someone else, they searched for an ally with aligned interests.
But apart from weapons, the other side has to BELIEVE you will strike back. Otherwise, it won't work. So, you have to maintain a reputation of striking back or otherwise they will jump at you. Austria called in the Germans, and the Germans were faced against the wall. They even sent a message to Russia saying "Stop". BUT, Russia was also against the wall, because they were allies of Serbia AND France! Nobody would back off or they would either be seen by their allies as unreliable and/or by their enemies as potential and available targets.
Germany didn't want to take Europe out. [B][I]It's impossible, and they knew it. Everybody knows it, specially UK who since immemorial times took advantage of alliances and coalitions against continental foes[/I][/B] They wanted to "claim a place in the sun without putting anyone else in the shadows".
So with this in mind, this statement:
[QUOTE]WW1 did not break out by accident or because diplomacy failed. It broke out as the result of a conspiracy between the governments of imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary to bring about war, albeit in the hope that Britain would stay out.
[/QUOTE]
Is pure bollocks. Britain WOULD never stay out of a war that tipped the balance of power in Europe against them. Germany tried to rush to Paris in order to force a surrender, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(1870–71)"]just like they did 40 years ago[/URL], thus leaving UK alone in their island.
I think if you throw unconditional support to an ally then it makes you responsible for that ally doing things that they would not have done without your support.
If Austria goes to war only because they know Germany will support them, then I'd say Germany was the 'cause'. That's why it's important to choose your allies carefully, and decide on how deeply you want to be involved in their affairs even more carefully.
WW1 happened because of the Serbs, it is obvious.
I also love how like half the rulers were related to each other because of Queen Victoria and royal marriages.
[QUOTE=qoou;43888283]WW1 happened because of the Serbs, it is obvious.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://facepunch.com/fp/flags/hu.png[/IMG]
And the worst part? No matter who won, a WW2 or an early cold war would totally have happened. If Germany had won, then it's very possible socialists took over the Republique and UK would have undergone the same social effects that Germany experimented during the Weimar period.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
