For a while, Austria and Serbia were on good terms. However, all that changed in 1903, when Serbian King Alexander and Queen Draga were overthrown and murdered (sound familiar). The king that took over, Peter, was very Pro-Russia and anti-Austria and his government was the one that started stirring up trouble in neighbouring Bosnia, which was under Austrian control (got his info from Greg and Susan's book about the assignation of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie).
I'll offer up a real life analogy. Let's say you have a friend who has a drinking problem. One night they leave the bar blitzed and crash their car into a tree, killing themselves. Now the two compelling thoughts that run through your mind after the sadness and anger have subsided, is A) what if someone could simply have refused to let them drive home that night. Someone sober and responsible could have taken the wheel and the friend would still be alive. But then there's always thought B) which suggests that the friend's drinking problems and irresponsibility were bound to cost them at some point. If they didn't hit the tree that night they probably would have soon.
I'm guessing you mean Prussia, since Germany would not exist until 1871.
Russia was weakened after the war with Japan and the 05 revolution. Therefore they backed out in hard times. After 1913 or so, they felt stronger again and put up the pressure. As a result of which was the unnecessary mobilization of july 1914. This cooked up the political system of alliances. Germany felt encircled by Russia, France and England. Therefore they made a pre-emptive strike.
I think the reason blame for the First World War is hard is because it's not just one thing, it was a series of events possibly stretching as far back as the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte. You really can't point to one event and say, "this caused the war, remove this, and no war."
Difficult to say who is to blame. If the murder in Serajevo didn't take place, what would have ignited it? The political system of alliances survived more political crises. With no Serajevo murder, the system could have survived.
Russia was weakened after the war with Japan and the 05 revolution. Therefore they backed out in hard times. After 1913 or so, they felt stronger again and put up the pressure. As a result of which was the unnecessary mobilization of july 1914. This cooked up the political system of alliances. Germany felt encircled by Russia, France and England. Therefore they made a pre-emptive strike.
Interesting thread. A main aspect of so-called conventional wisdom over the past 100+ years in Anglo-American history and propaganda is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was a war monger and saber rattler. Yet from 1871 when the German Empire was formed, Germany was involved in only three wars up to 1914 while Great Britain was involved in 21 and France 14.
Wilhelm and Germany were edging toward world leadership on many levels. At the turn of the 20th Century, the most important medical, chemistry, and physics studies and papers were published in German first. The growth during the Wilhelmine era was phenomenal and GB and France were particularly fearful and jealous of that growth and domination in fields of science, education, architecture, and more.
The German involvement in colonization was very late and very small compared to the other European powers. This cannot be used as a factor in Germany's aggressiveness, but for sure Great Britain and France reeked havoc in Africa, Asia, and the middle east all of which generated ill feelings that helped fuel global anxiety and balance of power politics.
So it's a myth that Wilhelm and Germany were aggressively stirring up trouble. The war mongering falls squarely on Great Britain and France.
Yet from 1871 when the German Empire was formed, Germany was involved in only three wars up to 1914 while Great Britain was involved in 21
QuoteYet from 1871 when the German Empire was formed, Germany was involved in only three wars up to 1914 while Great Britain was involved in 21
21? The only major British was I know of from this time frame is the Boer War.
QuoteInteresting thread. A main aspect of so-called conventional wisdom over the past 100+ years in Anglo-American history and propaganda is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was a war monger and saber rattler. Yet from 1871 when the German Empire was formed, Germany was involved in only three wars up to 1914 while Great Britain was involved in 21 and France 14.
Wilhelm and Germany were edging toward world leadership on many levels. At the turn of the 20th Century, the most important medical, chemistry, and physics studies and papers were published in German first. The growth during the Wilhelmine era was phenomenal and GB and France were particularly fearful and jealous of that growth and domination in fields of science, education, architecture, and more.
The German involvement in colonization was very late and very small compared to the other European powers. This cannot be used as a factor in Germany's aggressiveness, but for sure Great Britain and France reeked havoc in Africa, Asia, and the middle east all of which generated ill feelings that helped fuel global anxiety and balance of power politics.
So it's a myth that Wilhelm and Germany were aggressively stirring up trouble. The war mongering falls squarely on Great Britain and France.
Good points, HerrKaiser.
But a question or two for you...Since Britain and France had so many more colonies than Germany, doesn't this also mean that engaging in more conflicts is an inevitable by-product? Of course you can certainly criticize them for creating this situation in the first place with their imperialist ambitions, but having far more territory naturally means a lot more territory to defend, and more enemies to protect against. Britain took up the role of world police just as the US has since the end of WW2. Many will argue that it's not our right or their right to do so, and certainly a fair amount of self-interest is involved. But who else is going to "clean up the neighborhood" so to speak? China? India? The UN?!
I think in these instances one could argue that it was less a case of British or French "war-mongering" and more the result of their jingoism and the naive assumption that the people from other lands they conquered would simply welcome their rule (Ancient Rome faced similar problems)
All that said I do agree the Kaiser tends to get a bad rap in this particular area. He seemed reluctant to expand the German empire the way other European powers had. His opinions likely influenced by Bismarck and Caprivi who minimal imperialist ambitions and found colonization burdensome. It's a shame that Germany's leader a generation later (Hitler) schooled himself in the Carl Peters philosophy of empire building and domination by the master race, rather then the sensible (and far more peaceful) approach of Bismarck-Caprivi-Wilhelm.
Ancient Rome faced similar problems
The latter, seeking modest expansion and the creation of a Greater Serbia
QuoteThe latter, seeking modest expansion and the creation of a Greater Serbia
Milosovek (sp?)
The governor of Sarajevo (can't recall his name right now, but Greg and Susan mention him in their book about the assassination of the Archduke) is also to blame. Either this guy was in on the plot, or he was the most incompetent moron that ever walked the planet. "Extra security, nah, we don't need them." He knew, or at least suspected, a plot was underway, yet he never beefed up security. Duhhhhhhh!!
Oswald actually had to do something, like connect with a pair of shots from high atop the book depository.
One of the reasons for this you didn't mention is because it's easier for people to identify with the obvious good (Allies) vs evil (Axis) quality of the Second World War, whereas that is so much harder to define with the Great War that preceded. Both wars were awful merciless affairs, but one Pt. 2 makes for a much better story and conclusion.
Imperial Germany may have been an autocracyOnly in the delusional mind of Wilhelm II.
Yes, but my point was that, no matter how flawed the Kaiser's regime was, it was not a brutal dictatorship like Hitler's was. So the Germans of WWI didn't get the "bad guys" label the Germans of WWII did.
Well, it wasn't a democracy like Britain was.
The governor of the provence was General Oscar Potiorek. After WW I started he was put in command of the Austrian force that invaded Serbia In spite of the fact he had never commanded a force larger than a division. To say the 2 or 3 depending on the source 1914 Austrian invasions were failures is putting it mildly. The word moron is a good word to describe him.
What made WW1 a very schizophrenic war is the substantial number of soldiers who hoped that the enemy would win and / or that their empire (and all empires) would loose:
Irish fighting for the UK, Alsatian-Lorrainers and South Jutlanders fighting for Germany, Czech nationalists and Italians fighting for Austria-Hungary, Poles fighting for Russia, Communists in all countries etc.
Does anyone think that Nicholas would have been forced to abdicate had that Russian steamroller flattened Germany within a year or two as initially suggested? Maybe Nicholas's downfall, like that of a number of politicians, was not being able to remain popular and a source of national unity while tempering the lofty expectations put forth by his people...Of course you generally win elections and/or stay in power by shouting "Yes we can", not "No we shouldn't".
What made WW1 a very schizophrenic war is the substantial number of soldiers who hoped that the enemy would win and / or that their empire (and all empires) would loose:
Irish fighting for the UK, Alsatian-Lorrainers and South Jutlanders fighting for Germany, Czech nationalists and Italians fighting for Austria-Hungary, Poles fighting for Russia, Communists in all countries etc.
QuoteDoes anyone think that Nicholas would have been forced to abdicate had that Russian steamroller flattened Germany within a year or two as initially suggested? Maybe Nicholas's downfall, like that of a number of politicians, was not being able to remain popular and a source of national unity while tempering the lofty expectations put forth by his people...Of course you generally win elections and/or stay in power by shouting "Yes we can", not "No we shouldn't".
The first President Bush won the first Gulf War. It didn't help him in the 1992 Presidential Election, he got soundly trounced by Bill Clinton.
It should also be pointed out the germans really could not advance too much farther into Russia because they could not keep their armies supplied.
The article points out that for Americans, unlike WWII, WWI bears little significance although arguably in many respects it may have had a more profound impact on world history. The US was only involved from 1917 to 1918 versus the almost four years it was involved in WWII (1941-1945) and suffered fewer casualties (116,516 vs 405,399). Also no veterans remain to remind us of that tragic conflict.
Just started a brand new book The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 by Margaret MacMillan. It's a history of the period from 1900 up to 1914. On the eve of the 100th Anniversary of World War I it's interesting to see how there is still the debate of who really is responsible for WWI. From F. Fischer "The Foreign Policy of Imperial Germany and the Outbreak of the First World War War" (Germany's fault) to S. McMeekin "The Russian Origins of the First World War" (Russia's fault). Of course you can't leave out the Austro-Hungarian government either.
MacMillan is a professor of international history at Oxford and wrote a wonderful history of the negotiations leading to the Versailles Treaty entitled Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World which won all sorts of prizes. Looking forward to a good read.
Clark seems to place equal blame on them all
Clark seems to place equal blame on them all
All in all, this seems to be the consensus now, hundred years after.
I hope the centennial will focus on Belgium, not just as the scene of much of the bloodshed, but also as a political entity. Was Belgium really worth fighting a world war for?
And what about Denmark? Food for thought that it's constantly ranked as the world's happiest nation. Perhaps because the Glücksborgers ever since 1864, in making alliances that would protect Denmark against total extinction, accidentally pitted the major powers against each other in a mutually self-destructive war that spared (even enlarged) Denmark.
had this French socialist had been alive in July 1914
I have reached the conclusion where I see WW1 as just the West European version of the Russian Civil War and ensuing genocides. Needless bloodbaths orchestrated by wicked fanatics. 2014 should be a year when Europe admits it was no better in 1914 than Stalinist Soviet.
As I have said, we're still reaping the bitter harvest that war planted.
You don't think the rebirth of Poland outweighs the negative consequences?
United States clearly WW2 had significantly greater impact on their respective futures making their limited (especially in the case of Japan) involvement in the First World War pale in comparison
-Russia is cast into a dark age that it's still struggling to emerge from.Although Russia has always been in another, darker age than the rest of Europe, this is of course true. It is food for thought that the Stalinist genocides were products of WW1, while the truly genocidal WW2 put an end to them.
-Germany is left with a weak and ineffective government, paving the way for the rise of Hitler.Sure, but you could say the same of France in 1871: Left with a weak and ineffective government and a national anti-German sentiment that paved the way for WW1.
-various ethic groups are thrown into new counties without any say in the matter, something which led to the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990's.It's too easy to blame that on WW1: Where there were problems before WW1, there are still problems, as we speak. (Bosnia)
-the Middle East is divided up between Britain and France, and many of the problems there today can be traced back to those idiotic decisions.Very true.
Tell me again how WWI left the world a better place?E. g. (parliamentary) democracy with universal suffrage triumphed in the West and the economic crisis following the war was solved with Social Democracy, not a bloody revolution.
Thus it was quite obvious that these empires would fail, wasn't it?
Maybe it was the speed of which those empires fell. Whoosh, gone, after centuries. Leaves a honking big vacuum for any dictator or nut case to fill.
Perhaps if they had gradually been dismantled, like the British Empire was (which would be replaced by the Commonwealth Of Nations), thing might have gone better for all.
I think we Romanov fans with our related fascination for the other two empires in the Holy League (Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns) (and horror of both Spała and Franciszka Szanckowska?) easily forget the tragedy of Polish partition and what a cause célèbre it was, like a 19th century Tibet.