Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: Cubs on February 12, 2014, 12:24:14 PM
-
Since the last BBC article on WW1 I posted received such universal approval and agreement and a total thumbs-up for Dan Snow's abilities as an historian, I thought I throw another one in.
Note that these are the opinions of a broad spectrum of academics and historians.
As nations gear up to mark 100 years since the start of World War One, academic argument still rages over which country was to blame for the conflict.
England Education Secretary Michael Gove's recent criticism of how the causes and consequences of the war are taught in schools has only stoked the debate further.
Here 10 leading historians give their opinion.
Sir Max Hastings - military historian
Germany
No one nation deserves all responsibility for the outbreak of war, but Germany seems to me to deserve most.
It 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.
The question of whether Britain was obliged to join the European conflict which became inevitable by 1 August is almost a separate issue. In my own view neutrality was not a credible option because a Germany victorious on the continent would never afterwards have accommodated a Britain which still dominated the oceans and global financial system.
Sir Richard J Evans - Regius professor of history, University of Cambridge
Serbia
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.
Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
The generally positive attitude of European statesmen towards war, based on notions of honour, expectations of a swift victory, and ideas of social Darwinism, was perhaps the most important conditioning factor. It is very important to look at the outbreak of the war in the round and to avoid reading back later developments - the German September Programme for example (an early statement of their war aims) - into the events of July-August 1914.
Dr Heather Jones - associate professor in international history, LSE
Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia
A handful of bellicose political and military decision-makers in Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia caused WW1.
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.
This frightened Germany into pre-emptively declaring war on Russia and on Russia's ally France and launching a brutal invasion, partly via Belgium, thereby bringing in Britain, a defender of Belgian neutrality and supporter of France.
John Rohl - emeritus professor of history, University of Sussex
Austria-Hungary and Germany
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.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was eventually forced to abdicate After 25 years of domination by Kaiser Wilhelm II with his angry, autocratic and militaristic personality, his belief in the clairvoyance of all crowned heads, his disdain for diplomats and his conviction that his Germanic God had predestined him to lead his country to greatness, the 20 or so men he had appointed to decide the policy of the Reich opted for war in 1914 in what they deemed to be favourable circumstances.
Germany's military and naval leaders, the predominant influence at court, shared a devil-may-care militarism that held war to be inevitable, time to be running out, and - like their Austrian counterparts - believed it would be better to go down fighting than to go on tolerating what they regarded as the humiliating status quo. In the spring of 1914, this small group of men in Berlin decided to make "the leap into the dark" which they knew their support for an Austrian attack on Serbia would almost certainly entail.
The fine-tuning of the crisis was left to the civilian chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, whose primary aim was to subvert diplomatic intervention in order to begin the war under the most favourable conditions possible. In particular, he wanted to convince his own people that Germany was under attack and to keep Britain out of the conflict.
Gerhard Hirschfeld - professor of modern and contemporary history, University of Stuttgart
Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia
Long before the outbreak of hostilities Prussian-German conservative elites were convinced that a European war would help to fulfil Germany's ambitions for colonies and for military as well as political prestige in the world.
The actual decision to go to war over a relatively minor international crisis like the Sarajevo murder, however, resulted from a fatal mixture of political misjudgement, fear of loss of prestige and stubborn commitments on all sides of a very complicated system of military and political alliances of European states.
In contrast to the historian Fritz Fischer who saw German war aims - in particular the infamous September Programme of 1914 with its far-reaching economic and territorial demands - at the core of the German government's decision to go to war, most historians nowadays dismiss this interpretation as being far too narrow. They tend to place German war aims, or incidentally all other belligerent nations' war aims, in the context of military events and political developments during the war.
Dr Annika Mombauer - The Open University
Austria-Hungary and Germany
Whole libraries have been filled with the riddle of 1914. Was the war an accident or design, inevitable or planned, caused by sleepwalkers or arsonists? To my mind the war was no accident and it could have been avoided in July 1914. In Vienna the government and military leaders wanted a war against Serbia. The immediate reaction to the murder of Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 was to seek redress from Serbia, which was thought to have been behind the assassination plot and which had been threatening Austria-Hungary's standing in the Balkans for some time. Crucially, a diplomatic victory was considered worthless and "odious". At the beginning of July, Austria's decision-makers chose war.
But in order to implement their war against Serbia they needed support from their main ally Germany. Without Germany, their decision to fight against Serbia could not have been implemented. The Berlin government issued a "blank cheque" to its ally, promising unconditional support and putting pressure on Vienna to seize this golden opportunity. Both governments knew it was almost certain that Russia would come to Serbia's aid and this would turn a local war into a European one, but they were willing to take this risk.
Germany's guarantee made it possible for Vienna to proceed with its plans - a "no" from Berlin would have stopped the crisis in its tracks. With some delay Vienna presented an ultimatum to Serbia on 23 July which was deliberately unacceptable. This was because Austria-Hungary was bent on a war and Germany encouraged it because the opportunity seemed perfect. Victory still seemed possible whereas in a few years' time Russia and France would have become invincible. Out of a mixture of desperation and over-confidence the decision-makers of Austria-Hungary and Germany unleashed a war to preserve and expand their empires. The war that ensued would be their downfall.
Sean McMeekin - assistant professor of history at Koc University, Istanbul
Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia
It is human nature to seek simple, satisfying answers, which is why the German war guilt thesis endures today.
Without Berlin's encouragement of a strong Austro-Hungarian line against Serbia after Sarajevo - the "blank cheque" - WW1 would clearly not have broken out. So Germany does bear responsibility.
But it is equally true that absent a terrorist plot launched in Belgrade the Germans and Austrians would not have faced this terrible choice. Civilian leaders in both Berlin and Vienna tried to "localise" conflict in the Balkans. It was Russia's decision - after Petersburg received its own "blank cheque" from Paris - to Europeanise the Austro-Serbian showdown which produced first a European and then - following Britain's entry - world conflagration. Russia, not Germany, mobilised first.
The resulting war, with France and Britain backing Serbia and Russia against two Central Powers, was Russia's desired outcome, not Germany's. Still, none of the powers can escape blame. All five Great Power belligerents, along with Serbia, unleashed Armageddon.
Prof Gary Sheffield - professor of war studies, University of Wolverhampton
Austria-Hungary and Germany
The war was started by the leaders of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Vienna seized the opportunity presented by the assassination of the archduke to attempt to destroy its Balkan rival Serbia. This was done in the full knowledge that Serbia's protector Russia was unlikely to stand by and this might lead to a general European war.
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.
The best that can be said of German and Austrian leaders in the July crisis is that they took criminal risks with world peace.
Dr Catriona Pennell - senior lecturer in history, University of Exeter
Austria-Hungary and Germany
In my opinion, it is the political and diplomatic decision-makers in Germany and Austria-Hungary who must carry the burden of responsibility for expanding a localised Balkan conflict into a European and, eventually, global war. Germany, suffering from something of a "younger child" complex in the family of European empires, saw an opportunity to reconfigure the balance of power in their favour via an aggressive war of conquest.
On 5 July 1914 it issued the "blank cheque" of unconditional support to the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire (trying to reassert its dominance over the rebellious Serbia), despite the likelihood of this sparking war with Russia, an ally of France and Great Britain. However, Austria-Hungary's actions should not be ignored.
The ultimatum it issued to Serbia on 23 July was composed in such a way that its possibility of being accepted was near impossible. Serbia's rejection paved the way for Austria-Hungary to declare war on 28 July, thus beginning WW1.
David Stevenson - professor of international history, LSE
Germany
The largest share of responsibility lies with the German government. Germany's rulers made possible a Balkan war by urging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia, well understanding that such a conflict might escalate. Without German backing it is unlikely that Austria-Hungary would have acted so drastically.
They also started wider European hostilities by sending ultimata to Russia and France, and by declaring war when those ultimata were rejected - indeed fabricating a pretext that French aircraft had bombed Nuremberg.
Finally, they violated international treaties by invading Luxemburg and Belgium knowing that the latter violation was virtually certain to bring in Britain. This is neither to deny that there were mitigating circumstances nor to contend that German responsibility was sole.
Serbia subjected Austria-Hungary to extraordinary provocation and two sides were needed for armed conflict. Although the Central Powers took the initiative, the Russian government, with French encouragement, was willing to respond.
In contrast, while Britain might have helped avert hostilities by clarifying its position earlier, this responsibility - even disregarding the domestic political obstacles to an alternative course - was passive rather than active.
-
t was the Freemasons! It was them, I know it! Or Opus Dei. Or the Rosencreutzers.
-
It seems we Finns are not alone with our old "driftwood theory"...
-
Looks to be overwhelmingly Germany/Austria-Hungary. Mind you most of those historians are British.
A recent tv documentary on the Royal Cousins highlighted how much power the Kaiser had and how unfit he was to wield it.
Given that their uniforms were dark grey clearly marks them out as the baddies lol
Cubster - Good to see you are alive and well. Rather missing the limericking. It did alot to advance my rank on another forum lol
-
...Given that their uniforms were dark grey clearly marks them out as the baddies lol
I'm inclined to think that’s rather because they wear boots instead of puttees… ;)
-
I have a vision....
This thread is gonna be political and it will be closed very soon !
-
Cubster - Good to see you are alive and well. Rather missing the limericking. It did alot to advance my rank on another forum lol
That sort of whimsical frivolity is not tolerated here. I find the discipline to be character building.
I have a vision....
This thread is gonna be political and it will be closed very soon !
Hey, the other one survived for ages!
I guess you're going to have three different ways of viewing this depending on whether you think blame is about -
1) Who threw the first punch.
2) Who chose not to stop the scrap, but instead got involved.
or
3) Who was being annoying enough to give someone an excuse to throw the first punch.
-
I guess you're going to have three different ways of viewing this depending on whether you think blame is about -
1) Who threw the first punch.
2) Who chose not to stop the scrap, but instead got involved.
or
3) Who was being annoying enough to give someone an excuse to throw the first punch.
That's a pretty reasonable way of looking at it.
Of all the above opinions, I find any that lay any real blame on Serbia to be absurd. Whatever anybody think of Serbia overall, the Black Hand was a terrorist/anarchist outfit barely even able to be called an "organization", the Serbian government was clearly exhausted from its previous Balkan War conflicts (and indeed Serbia was all but destroyed in WWI), and they met all but one of the ridiculous list of demands made in the July Ultimatum. The one demand they did not agree to - that Austro-Hungarian officials participate in any judicial proceedings against assassins or conspirators - would have actually been unconstitutional. Perhaps they might've found a way to do it, but in the end I can't blame them for trying to retain a small scrap of dignity. I doubt anyone fully appreciated the real stakes in 1914.
Perhaps the Serbs were in way over their head, but I find it much easier to blame the big boys. In the last thread I found the Fritz Fischer thesis to be particularly interesting, but while I agree with it, I do think not enough consideration is given for similar social causes among portions of the ruling classes in all major European nations, not just Germany. After all, that sort of thinking was what also led Russia to war in 1905.
This is understandable, since Fischer was only considering the German perspective, but I think to an extent you can spread some of that blame around even if you still think Germany and Austria-Hungary share a higher burden for it.
-
This is a more glib comment so I'll make it separately, to avoid any real points above:
There's a joke about American history that goes.
"In high school, you learn that the Civil War was started because of slavery. In university, you learn that the Civil War was started because of disagreements over States Rights. Then in postgraduate studies you learn that the Civil War was started because of slavery."
I feel like you could do the same joke with "Germany started WWI. Everybody started WWI. Germany started WWI."
-
According to legend, in the 1920s one of the larger German daily newspapers ran a 'best headline' competition. The winning entry:
ARCHDUKE FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE, WORLD WAR FOUGHT BY MISTAKE!
-
I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Sorry, someone had to say it ;)
-
God knows... Oh damn now I brought Religion in on it... I know it cost a lot... Lets blame the Bankers, it wouldnt be hard as they seem to have been blamed for most everything else lately, even global warming... all that money they burned.
-
Apologies if this has been posted here before -
Potted history of World War 1
"Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper.
When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway.
Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends."
-
That’s genius! Never saw it before... must be the most accurate depiction of the event I've seen so far! lol
-
Fan-bleedin'-tastic!
Now THAT should replace Blackadder for use in schools to explain WW1.
-
That is the best account of the 'Great' War i have ever read
-
I dare someone to do a demo game lol
-
Thread over, we can all go home now.
-
not gonna oppinionate about that...
I am however missing the perspective of historian Niall Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#World_War_I
who apparently does not offer a "simplistic" explanation which follows the "whodunnit" narrative concept, like :
who was responsible?
who could have stopped the madness happen?
but attempts to put it in context...
for a more intuitive approach, I recommend the much ignored german movie
"the white ribbon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_wei%C3%9Fe_Band
that puts a mirror in front of "german mentality", at least the one before WW1.
I cannot judge if other nations can induce something about their "own menatility" from it, or if the film simply says something about human nature in general....
apart from that, I very much favour the contrafactual approach, which explores alternative outcomes and in this way offers interesting (and very entertaining) perspectives into chosen foci (I hope this is the correct plural in english) of history.
I believe that, in a way, this is what historical wargamers actually do too?
-
Interesting that Niall Fergusson's write-up on Wiki says - "He is known for his provocative, contrarian views."
Reading a summary of his theories, I'd say this is an understatement.
If we accept his stuff as valid, then to the list of whether you blame -
1) Who threw the first punch.
2) Who chose not to stop the scrap, but instead got involved.
3) Who was being annoying enough to give someone an excuse to throw the first punch.
.. we then have to add -
4) Who didn't actually explain to everyone beforehand that throwing a punch results in a fight and tell them how they might react if that were the case.
He sounds a bit contrived on first viewing and a bit like one of those historians who realise they're not going to sell books by going over old ground, so they make stuff up instead to get their books more attention.
But like you say, if you're going to collect opinions it's not unhelpful to have some extremes at either end of the spectrum too. You don't have to agree, but it's good to know about them all the same.
-
chosen foci (I hope this is the correct plural in english)
It is correct, but I would hazard that the equally-correct anglicised alternative "focuses" is much more commonly used. I don't think I have ever heard the word "foci" spoken out loud. :)
Mod Hat: With the introduction of the undeniably contentious Ferguson I sense the possibilty of heated disagreement approaching, and Driscoles' uncanny prediction coming true. So fair warning: everybody make sure they play nice, please. I shall say this only once.
-
With the introduction of the undeniably contentious Ferguson
Yes, please consider this as an offer for expanding perspectives, not to copy controversies.
I have problems with discussing such complex issues in a wargaming forum. :?
I sympathize with the pub brawl model though. ;)
Plus, I consider myself not knowledgable enough for the luxury of an oppinion (in this matter) and I personally reject simplistic explanations.
I cannot offer a founded oppinion to that matter, only sources, sorry.
But I shall listen with interest
-
The bar fight metaphor has been enthusiastically received on my facebook page. Here are some additional suggestions:
- Arabia hits Turkey with Britain's help; gets arrested and locked up in Britain and France's basement
- Japan swipes Germany's pocket change when no one is watching and New Zealand helps
- Ireland sees whats going on and says its going to just sit in its own corner and drink it's beer. About halfway through the fight, Ireland gets up and walks up behind Britain's back and takes a swing, just knocking Britain's hat off. Britain stiff arms Ireland and says sternly "we will talk about this later". Ireland goes back to drinking its beer
- Finally, with apologies to Barbara Tuchman it is suggested this be titled "The Drunks of August"
-
If we are blaming Germany/Austria Hungary for starting the war, I would argue that that they couldn't have foreseen the nature and form the war would take and it's duration.
After all, the Franco-Prussian War was a relatively quick affair with an overwhelming victory for Germany so they would naturally expect that the next conflict to be similar and go their way.
-
Now THAT should replace Blackadder for use in schools to explain WW1.
No sir, I concur. Blackadder is not to be replaced by any means. I never witnessed a more accurate display of what the Great War was. Although that bar brawl story is rather well researched and perfectly told. Now, actually I think the one is not excluding the other. Well. Blackadder shall still teach the lessons history tells us.
-
Now THAT should replace Blackadder for use in schools to explain WW1.
No sir, I concur. Blackadder is not to be replaced by any means. I never witnessed a more accurate display of what the Great War was. Although that bar brawl story is rather well researched and perfectly told. Now, actually I think the one is not excluding the other. Well. Blackadder shall still teach the lessons history tells us.
As a history teacher I used the last episode with all my groups, however, there is now pressure to ban it in schools!
-
As a history teacher I used the last episode with all my groups, however, there is now pressure to ban it in schools!
As we say in Germany: "The prophet isn´t listened to in his own country."
-
If we are blaming Germany/Austria Hungary for starting the war, I would argue that that they couldn't have foreseen the nature and form the war would take and it's duration.
After all, the Franco-Prussian War was a relatively quick affair with an overwhelming victory for Germany so they would naturally expect that the next conflict to be similar and go their way.
And I think there's the rub. All the alliances people made to prevent war came to naught when someone rather foolishly ignored them and then looked surprised when they realised they'd started a war against the rest of Europe!
-
- "The Drunks of August"
lol lol
The bar fight metaphor is a fine a summary as I have ever herd for the answer to this long standing question of who ?
However Cluedo wise I am going for Austria Hungary with the lead pipe in the bar ?
As to why ……..?
When will the envelope with the answer be opened please ?
-
As we say in Germany: "The prophet isn´t listened to in his own country."
Just wanted to say that, sorry... ;)
-
Some of my favorite theories of "history" include:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
It is correct, but I would hazard that the equally-correct anglicised alternative "focuses" is much more commonly used. I don't think I have ever heard the word "foci" spoken out loud. :)
I have, the speaker was scouse. Despite my state of inebriation, I declined her invitation. ;)
-
And lets not forget that the Serbian Chief of Staff was actually supporting what today we would call a terrorist operation (the Black Hand - of which Gravillo Princip and his friends were members), and the weapons used to kill Franz Ferdinand were supplied by the Serbians. So when Austria thinks it will get into a short, sharp punishing campaign, the Germans unfortunately give them carte blanche - also unfortunately, the Russians are supporting the Serbs (who really did start the thing); the French supporting the Russians (to get their own back at the Germans in revanche for 1871 and to regain Alsace-Lorraine, which Louis XIV stole from the HR Empire in the late 17th century - note, Alsatians were more apt to speak German at home than French;Great Britain supporting them both, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around, and GB shares in it.
-
Might be kind of biased but I still wonder what was Canada’s role in the Bar brawl? ;D
-
Might be kind of biased but I still wonder what was Canada’s role in the Bar brawl? ;D
Tending the Bar?
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I distinctly remember some bloke responding to a conspiracy theorist on another forum. This foil-hat wearer blamed the CIA for everything from 9/11 to tsunamis (no, really, he actually did) and the response from someone else was - "I will never believe that the same organisation who was responsible for the 'Bay of Pigs' is expertly manipulating the world."
I think your truisms neatly explain WW1's causes (plus many others). You get anough errors of judgement together in one place and you have a major problem.
-
One of the things that allows speculation on motives is that while what happened is broadly known and documented, the mindset of the many of the people in mind is not as well documented. Even in cases where thoughts or motives were written down, they may have been done so by a person with an agenda or bias (think of all the Great War nobs eager in 1919 to disavow any responsibility for what was at the time possibly the world's greatest man-made fiasco).
This is where wiggle-room for "What caused it?" comes in. The alliances are one factor, but the human motivations - the decisions to go or not to go, the assumptions made about chances for victory, about the length of the war or its effects, the desire of individual citizens for an "adventure" or the chance to "avenge" themselves on a perceived national enemy - those are all much harder to pin down.
-
Might be kind of biased but I still wonder what was Canada’s role in the Bar brawl? ;D
Well, we certainly participated ...
(http://www.myalbum.ca/Photo-BEN47CMW-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.ca/Photo-4WCUUK6R-D.jpg)
Vimy Ridge Memorial, pics taken in 2010 just before the anniversary (April). Carved around the base of the memorial are 13000+ names of Canadians who simply disappeared in the 1914-1918 fighting - never found. Walking it is very moving, the names seem to go on forever. Incidentally, in 2007(?) they identified two of them when a pair of bodies was found in a field.
I very much think Austria-Hungary, with it's crumbling empire and last-ditch clutch for keeping it together was to blame. Hastings recent book Catastrophe is about 50% "why?" and the rest of the book about the war. It's quite an in-depth analysis of the lead-up to the war.
-
I would not be surprised to find out the bulk of the british effort in the early stages of the war was at sea and their war aims focused on knocking the stuffing out of the german fleet so at the end of the short war they envisioned they remained the dominant power at sea.
Very true. I think the land stuff was almost a sideshow, and it's why the early disasters at sea were very demoralizing to Britain. Robert K. Massie has two excellent titles - Dreadnought, about the race you speak of, and Castles of Steel, about the actual war at sea. Very thick books, hard to put down!
-
Very true. I think the land stuff was almost a sideshow, and it's why the early disasters at sea were very demoralizing to Britain. Robert K. Massie has two excellent titles - Dreadnought, about the race you speak of, and Castles of Steel, about the actual war at sea. Very thick books, hard to put down!
Although the Germans rather spoiled things by not wanting to come out and play with their main High Seas Fleet. Massie's two books are excellent.
It's been argued though that the Germans had lost the 'naval battle' by 1912 when the British building battleship programme ("We want eight and we won't wait") was once again outbuilding the German yards & restoring the advantage that they were briefly in danger of losing.
-
Interestingly, it's been noted that the German navy was the least effective arm of the German military services in either world war, by a pretty wide margin.
Granted much of that is hindsight, but the Royal Navy had a lot of baggage and made many mistakes that could have been exploited by a more able foe. The views of Tirpitz and Raeder were particularly damaging.
-
All the leaders of those nation/empires, allied, central 'powers' doesn't matter they ALL share the blame. And of coarse the finger that tapped the domino...
-
Apologies if this has been posted here before -
Potted history of World War 1
"Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub ..."
lol Brilliant. Amazingly succinct to.
-
I have, the speaker was scouse. Despite my state of inebriation, I declined her invitation. ;)
lol You, sir, are a pisser...
-
Might be kind of biased but I still wonder what was Canada’s role in the Bar brawl? ;D
Apologizing to everyone.
-
Apologizing to everyone for being so awesome!
There, made it correct for for you. lol
-
As it happens, I am in the middle of Sean Mc Meekin's "July 1914" which breaks down the diplomatic moves on an hourly basis.
So far, Serbia looks like the villain of the piece. It was engaged in a campaign to destabilize A-H in part by supporting terror and assassination of prominent Austrian figures. No great power is going to tolerate that. Serbia is only doing it because it knows that Russia will back it. And Russia wants to expand into the Balkans and obtain control of the Bosphorus. So Russia and A-H are on a collision course w Serbia as Russia's proxy.
So far, the Austrian - and German - mistake is not supporting a "Cold War" proxy war in which 1 of Serbia's Balkan rivals is backed and supplied to rip into Serbia, thus allowing A-H to stay out of direct involvement. Of course, A-H could have engaged in its own covert terrorist operations against Serbia.
Tactics that proved useful when there was a balance of nuclear deterrence in the 1950's-80's, were unfortunately not developed in the 1910's.
Germany seems just stupid in its assumption that Russia will not fight when Serbia gets over-run by A-H.
-
Of course, in a macro sense, A-H was probably screwed anyway and would have disintegrated even wo WW1. So the ? is why Germany didn't just cut A-H loose. This would have removed the issue of the Balkans as a causus belli with Russia and potentially broken the Triple Entente.
France would not challenge Germany unaided by Russia. GB would not commit to a major land war as its major concern was German naval power. So no WW1.
McMeekin would argue, I guess that Germany had its own Middle Eastern agenda and wanted to prop Turkey up. But this is hardly a hardcore state necessity for Germany. More like K-Bill's little fantasy.
-
Since this is obviously a serious topic I will put in my historical perspective.
A certain adventurer ( to be named at the end) was notorious for rooting around in other peoples lands and taking things for "Museums" having no concern at all about killing and maiming as he went. It was he who took the Kaisers tooth brush and left a French Baguette as a calling card. Then hoping a train he headed quickly to Paris to leave a large smudge on Napoleons tomb with a German beer tankard beside it. Then getting into his own personal aircraft he flew to St Petersburg where he stole the Czars favourite hat and "accidently" dropped some Eidlewiess beside the hats location. Flying this time to London he "found" some of the crown jewels and in place left some Sauerkraut! His final two destinations were Vienna and Sarajevo. In Vienna he left two tickets to the Sarajevo gulash fest addressed to the Archduke and then headed down to Sarajevo to tell a certain "revolutionary" that the Archduke said that Serbia smells bad.
So its not about a country or countries it was one guy - just one guy and he did it to free up more space to explore and conduct "archeological digs" (if you believe his hype.
The man - a true American hero - INDIANNA JONES!
-
I think that there is at least good deal of validity to the view that also points out that no matter when or how it happened, the great powers of Europe were in clear low-grade competition for decades and that a broader conflict of some sort was inevitable. In many ways, it's impressive that they balanced on the knife edge for as long as they did.
-
The man - a true American hero - INDIANNA JONES!
I call BS. Not even the post-Teddy-Roosevelt United States were barmy enough to let a 15-year-old get a pilot's license. ;)
On a more serious note, though, I'd really recommend the aforementioned "The Guns of August" for an in-depth and harrowing analysis of the various "automatisms" that had developed in the pre-war years and served to aggravate the situation once the trigger was pulled, if you'll excuse the pun.
-
What I have found interesting is reading some pre-WW1 Edwardian fiction and finding that the danger of a European conflict was on everyone's mind, but that many people thought it would be confined to the Balkans only.
A clash was certainly expected, and indeed a major war that would involve most of Europe was certainly feared (much as WW3 was feared during the 1980's I guess), but a lot of people were thinking (hoping?) that the various powers would not risk becoming involved in an all-out war and at worst they would fight almost a colonial war isolated to the Balkan region.
-
as there was also that phenomenon called "invasion literature"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_literature
-
So the ? is why Germany didn't just cut A-H loose.
I'd say that was so unthinkable, because even though Prussia/A-H fought over territory in the past and Austria was not included in the German Reich in 1871, A-H used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations and thus was alot closer to the German mindset back then, then say the Russians, British or god-forbid the French (no offense).
So while it is a good question I think it is irrelevant, given that Germany could not be picky with her allies, as the Kaiser so gloriously mismanaged the delicate treaty system the Iron Chancellor Bismarck established in his days.
Just my piece of mind ...
-
as there was also that phenomenon called "invasion literature"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_literature
Did not know that. I'm definitely going to look up some of those for fun.
-
absolute wargaming fodder, I can tell :D
-
I think that there is at least good deal of validity to the view that also points out that no matter when or how it happened, the great powers of Europe were in clear low-grade competition for decades and that a broader conflict of some sort was inevitable. In many ways, it's impressive that they balanced on the knife edge for as long as they did.
And of course, there was absolutely no precedent for anyone believing that a war would last 4 years of stalemate, kill 10,000,000 people and shatter the political structure of 3 of the main combatants. If you suggested that in summer 1914, probably everyone would think you were crazy.
-
...and shatter the political structure of 3 of the main combatants.
I'd put that number at five. In addition to Austria-Hungary, Imperial Germany and Imperial Russia collapsing, the Ottoman Empire was swept away, and Italy ended up with Alexei Sayle in charge.
-
Italy ended up with Alexei Sayle in charge.
lol lol lol