Poll: Who is to blame for WWI?

[thespyisdead]

Ihave been studying history, which encompassed the origins of WWI.

i first started out believing(and what the triple entente powers wanted you to believe) that Germany is to blame(and this consensus led to WWII). but after going deeper, i realized, that each power involved had a reason to bear the blame as much as Germany did.

i finally came to the conclusion, that Austria-Hungary should actually be blamed, and not Germany(although the triple entente comes as a close second). the reason i say this, is because they were to slow in sending out an ultimatum to Serbia after the assassination of the Arch Duke. this was largely due to the fact the A-H was a country of many nationalities, and 2 parliaments(or their analogues). Germany supported A-H fully, but also said to do it as fast as possible. also: Russians would have supported the decision of A-H's ultimatum, WOULD it have been dispatched right after the assassination, but this was not the case.


that is my opinion in a nutshell

what do you think, escapist?

 

[capper42]

Seems weird to not still have Germany as an option. I'm not going to vote because it's been a long time since I studied the First World War in depth so wouldn't have too much to base my opinion on. However, You seem to be basing your decision on the actions taken immediately after the assassination of Franz, which ignores the long term causes of the war. The assassination and actions after were just the trigger for war, when it was probably already inevitable by that point.

 

[thespyisdead]

However, You seem to be basing your decision on the actions taken immediately after the assassination of Franz, which ignores the long term causes of the war. The assassination and actions after were just the trigger for war, when it was probably already inevitable by that point.

ok... but that is why i added the mention of the triple entente as a close second, as it can also be attributed the role of building up tension between the nations, and the fact that all of Europe had no clue how the entente worked, also adds up to the tension

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

honestly, its irrelevant who's to blame really. it doesn't change what happened, and every nation in europe had something to gain from going to war at the time, the archdukes assassination was merely the spark that ignited it

 

[Doclector]

Everyone was to blame. A small war grew to burn the world because every country that involved called it's big brother without ever considering the terrible consequences.

Though, if I were to say who was worse in that war, it'd be the allies, and this is coming from a brit. We forced reparations upon an already crippled germany when, as I said, everyone involved was equally responsible. When we should have been helping each other out of the almighty mess we all left the world in, we chose to greedily blame germany, causing the depression and resulting desperation that opened the door for hitler to seize power by taking advantage of the people's need for a way out of it all. In a way, we're partly responsible for WW2, because of how we chose to behave at the end of WW1.

If there's a better lesson to be learned about the importance of realising when your enemy is defeated, knowing when to stop, and taking responsibility for your actions, then I'll be surprised.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Ultimately, Louis XV and the complacency with which he ruled from Versailles during the middle of the 18th century. Around the time of the French Revolution, we all know what happened there (and for the most part, why), French nationalism was viewed with a great deal of misapprehension by all the powers that surrounded France, most notably Austria and the UK (Prussia and Russia to a lesser extent). Come the rise of Napoleon and what he did to central Europe left a lot of Germans feeling bitter towards French unity and its political effects on the remainder of Europe. Then, because of the ideals that fomented as a result, we have the Revolutions of 1848 and the inevitable spread of German nationalism which played Prussia and Austria against each other for dominance over the German speaking parts of Europe. And enter the troublemaker-general, Otto von Bismarck, who I maintain was responsible for both the rise and the fall of the German Empire. With his machinations, Prussia and Austria allied to destroy Denmark (sort of) and demonstrate the Prussian military machine to the rest of the world (sort of). The Austro-Prussian War confirmed the northern Germans' strength and would ensure a Kleindeutschland Losung end result. However, Bismarck played, perhaps without fully realising the consequences, the Crown Prince Frederick against the Prince William (the third and final Kaiser) guaranteeing that Wilhelm II would be a reactionist, nationalist and xenophobe. Basically, Bismarck would ensure that the son would be as different from the father as he could be. The 'old guard' of Prussian gentry were very anglophilic, so if they had survived to maintain influence, Frederick III, von Moltke the Elder, von Blumenthal and few others could've made the Reich more liberal. But, as I mentioned, Bismarck was a troublemaker and Wilhelm repealed virtually every law his father passed (what few of them, anyway, I don't think many of them even made it to 'white paper' status).

Anyway, moving on... or perhaps back to what I consider the intermediary cause: French public reaction to the loss of the Franco-Prussian War. I personally feel that France had no right to complain after losing (think of Prussia after the Fourth Coalition!). France declared the war and effectively lost within three months. Taking Elsass-Lothringen was not unreasonable as the ethnic groups there (particularly in Elsass) were more German than French (though not strictly speaking either) and the indemnity demanded was peanuts compared to the WWI one levied against Germany. But then, here again is another fault of France insomuch that the Bourbon successors were so crappy that they were easily toppled by Napoleon III.

As for the lead-up to WWI, ignoring all that I've mentioned, the only major player who can't really be blamed is the UK. Edward VII played a good card by making (politcal) peace with France in 1908 (I think) and merely kept the RN's tradition of being the most powerful in the world. Germany alienated everyone who didn't speak German, Nicholas was an idiot (losing to Japan... twice) and just shrugging it off, France kept tub-thumping about regaining Alsace-Lorraine (and both sides exacted rather violent reprisals against each other, though debatably France was ultimately a lot worse), and Austria-Hungary was by then an impotent nation, incapable of keeping her provinces in line. They would need a war with a powerful ally to reaffirm their position in Europe as a major power.

The immediate (military) blame lies with Russia. Their military (with the exception of the Moskva Guberniya based elite units) was in a shit state and Nicholas II's decision to mobilise spelled the end of three monarchies. Germany was young and still unsure of itself, for all Wilhelm's ambition (he still had aspirations to a colonial empire, laughable as it may seem now), and until 1905 had little intention of going to war with anyone except France. Had Russia not mobilised, Germany would've left Austria to deal with the Slavic insurgents by themselves while still eyeing the French warily. Who knows, if Austria fucked it up enough, Germany might've invited them to rejoin the Zollverein!

So, who do I blame again? Frederick III for smoking so damned much!

 

[thespyisdead]

The immediate (military) blame lies with Russia. Their military (with the exception of the Moskva Guberniya based elite units) was in a shit state and Nicholas II's decision to mobilise spelled the end of three monarchies. Germany was young and still unsure of itself, for all Wilhelm's ambition (he still had aspirations to a colonial empire, laughable as it may seem now), and until 1905 had little intention of going to war with anyone except France. Had Russia not mobilised, Germany would've left Austria to deal with the Slavic insurgents by themselves while still eyeing the French warily. Who knows, if Austria fucked it up enough, Germany might've invited them to rejoin the Zollverein!

So, who do I blame again? Frederick III for smoking so damned much!

you also seem to forget, that German involvement in the war was not guaranteed, as wasn't french or British. the only reason Germany attacked, and France at that, is because it felt threatened, but it was threatened by a mere understanding(entente). If you're playing the military card, then Russia, Germany and Britain are equally to blame (i say Britain, because it did not make it's stance clear enough, before it went to war)

 

[Hero in a half shell]

=historical snip=

I would agree with the sentiments of this guy, the reasons for why everyone went to war in 1914 (or 1916 if you're American) were not solely dictated by what happened immediately before the war, but by the foreign relations and alliances and enemies each major country had made that stretched back several generations. Every country had their own reasons and faults, and every country was itching for a fight.

Fact is, Britain France and Germany routinely knocked the stuffing out of each other every few years. It was almost as expected and regular as the Football World Cup (although Britain is a lot better at war than football). The issues that made the first world war unique was the scale of the warfare (because of the previous few decades of war pacts and alliances meant the whole world accidentally got sucked into fighting) and the utter domination the machine gun gave to trench warfare, without the neccessary technology to counter it (accurate artillery and armoured vehicles) which led to horrendously bloody battles and deaths/casulties on a scale never before imagined.

 

[SckizoBoy]

you also seem to forget, that German involvement in the war was not guaranteed, as wasn't french or British. the only reason Germany attacked, and France at that, is because it felt threatened, but it was threatened by a mere understanding(entente). If you're playing the military card, then Russia, Germany and Britain are equally to blame (i say Britain, because it did not make it's stance clear enough, before it went to war)

Fair enough... though to be fair, I'm not too au fait with the political background of WWI... In a sense (albeit a simplistic one) it was straight up causality. France/GB only (OK, maybe not only) went to war because of Russia's declaration against Austria-Hungary (and by consequence, Germany's on Russia).

To be honest, thinking about WWI for too long makes me rage, primarily because of the outcome... not so much the result, but the rearrangement of the European political map...

Ferdinand Foch denounced the Treaty of Versailles as a 20 year peace treaty which was surprisingly accurate. But there were only two ways to avoid this (i.e. peace without inciting a future Germany to make war), and is something very few have learned (from Scipio Africanus, from all people): complete and utter destruction of the enemy (difficult bordering on impossible for the German Empire with the possible exception of dissolution of the Empire into its constituent kingdoms or something along those lines) (e.g. Third Punic War); or clemency to effectively beholden the vanquished to the victor (ironically, WWII)...

Excuse my random thoughts... I'm watching Alice in Wonderland (1950)... *ahem*