"Germany Is Responsible For WWI."

[Sharpe]

Imperial stage

For any argument I think this is the key concept.

This relates to Germany's policies in Europe and the rest of the world - they wanted an empire like the British and French. But why would an encircled nation fight a land war in Europe against the strongest powers of the age -Facing the prospect of a war on two fronts.

You only have to look at a map to see this:



At the same time their position has some advantages -They would have short interior lines that would facilitate the rapid movement of forces from one front to another, which gives the possibility of defeating opponents sequentially and in detail. Schlieffen’s 1905 Plan – Krieg gegen Frankreich – focuses on defeating France first. I'm not saying this is indicative of an intended war as undoubtedly most powers had some plan of how they would fight war, especially given the onset of new technology.

It is really hard to say if Germany is indeed responsible. We have the advantage of looking back and saying 'they were never going to win'.

Even the Germans knew that a war would be damning. Helmuth von Motlke covered it pretty well - "Gentlemen, if the war which has hung over our heads for more than ten years like a sword of Damocles - if this war were to break out, no one could foresee how long it would last nor how it would end. The greatest powers in Europe, armed as never before, would confront each other in battle. None of them could be thrown down so completely, in one or two campaigns, that they would have to admit defeat and be compelled to accept hard conditions for peace without any chance, even after a year's time, of renewing the fight. Gentlemen, it could be a Seven Years' War; it could be a Thirty Years' War; and woe to the man who sets Europe ablaze, who first throws the match into the powder barrel!"

Judging from that quote all parties are guilty, just Germany perhaps moreso

Why does it matter so much?

People place too much blame on the Germans. Anyone of the Imperial powers could have started this war, and many argue Germany's act of war is of self defense.

[Keyser]

Found the site and the archives i talked about, very enlightening :

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/1914.htm

The pre 1914 and the 1914 pages are were many of the archives interesting the topic will be found, obviously.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Germany already had a bad reputation in 1914 and 1939.

[Scharfrichter]

But nowadays it isn't justified.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Doesn't have to be justified, you just need people to believe that it is. And they will believe it.

[ccllnply]

I was watching Sky News the other day and they were talking about names of soldiers who died in WW1 being released and described them as "men who fought for our freedom". As if Germany was going to annex Great Britain and turn the whole country into a plantation

Like usual this is related to how media portray things and then the masses don't even realise how they've been led into believing it.

[Stavroforos]

For any argument I think this is the key concept.

This relates to Germany's policies in Europe and the rest of the world - they wanted an empire like the British and French. But why would an encircled nation fight a land war in Europe against the strongest powers of the age -Facing the prospect of a war on two fronts.

You only have to look at a map to see this:



At the same time their position has some advantages -They would have short interior lines that would facilitate the rapid movement of forces from one front to another, which gives the possibility of defeating opponents sequentially and in detail. Schlieffen’s 1905 Plan – Krieg gegen Frankreich – focuses on defeating France first. I'm not saying this is indicative of an intended war as undoubtedly most powers had some plan of how they would fight war, especially given the onset of new technology.

It is really hard to say if Germany is indeed responsible. We have the advantage of looking back and saying 'they were never going to win'.

Even the Germans knew that a war would be damning. Helmuth von Motlke covered it pretty well - "Gentlemen, if the war which has hung over our heads for more than ten years like a sword of Damocles - if this war were to break out, no one could foresee how long it would last nor how it would end. The greatest powers in Europe, armed as never before, would confront each other in battle. None of them could be thrown down so completely, in one or two campaigns, that they would have to admit defeat and be compelled to accept hard conditions for peace without any chance, even after a year's time, of renewing the fight. Gentlemen, it could be a Seven Years' War; it could be a Thirty Years' War; and woe to the man who sets Europe ablaze, who first throws the match into the powder barrel!"

Judging from that quote all parties are guilty, just Germany perhaps moreso



People place too much blame on the Germans. Anyone of the Imperial powers could have started this war, and many argue Germany's act of war is of self defense.

The same imperial ambition also played a large part in WWII, which is often forgotten. Hitler wanted to conquer and rule the east in the same way the British ruled their colonial empire, with the addition of some specialized...factories.

I was watching Sky News the other day and they were talking about names of soldiers who died in WW1 being released and described them as "men who fought for our freedom". As if Germany was going to annex Great Britain and turn the whole country into a plantation

Like usual this is related to how media portray things and then the masses don't even realise how they've been led into believing it.

I think this is more of a problem of our hero-worship of soldiers. I was watching a BBC report where they were covering the centennial preparations in a Belgian village which was the site of a major battle (forget which one) where they were showing how the amount of souvenirs and merchandise might be insensitive...how is it insensitive? It's been 100 years, the guys are long dead and buried, there's no reason to worry about offending anyone. I mean, should we not buy 300 merchandise because it's profiteering from dead soldiers?

[Hakomar]

Unfortunately my knowledge on the First World War is a little loose, so I encourage criticism and correction. But to my understanding Germany was responsible for the First World War for several reasons:

Yes, a Serbian did kill the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, yet that does not make the whole government of the Kingdom of Serbia responsible.
Yes, Austria-Hungary did set unreasonable demands to Serbia which were undoubtedly going to be rejected, as an excuse for expansion.

However, war with Serbia always meant war with Russia. The Second Balkan War, in which Bulgaria, a nominally Russian-friendly state, attacked Serbia, too a nominally Russian-friendly state, meant that Russia faced a dichotomy of supporting one and losing the other, and as Bulgaria was the aggressor, it was dropped in preference to Serbia.
However, this went deeper than a scaling down of sphere of influence in the Balkans: both Serbia and Bulgaria had expanded in territory, barring that gained in the First Balkan War, due to Russo-Turkish wars (see Treaty of San Stefano, which became a bit of a fetish in Bulgarian history). Russia had spent a lot of time and effort in carving a sphere of influence, and it seemed that post Bulgarian aggression in 1913, Bosnian annexation in 1912 and potential Serbian annexation in 1914, that not only had Russia wasted a century of political energy in the Balkans, but that Austria-Hungary would be the main beneficiary of it. Combined with the 1905 military defeat to Japan, losing Serbia would have not just have been a huge loss but a deep embarassment.

The part where Germany comes in is the 'Carte blanche' idea - Germany gave a blank cheque to Austria-Hungary to resolve the Serbian crisis any which way. It is doubtful that Austria-Hungary would have elected for war if not for the backing of Germany: even though it was fifty years ago, Russia intervened to crush a Hungarian rebellion against the ailing Austrian state. The weakness of Austria-Hungary is also revealed in their innumerable defeats at the hands of the Russians during WW1.
As said, war with Serbia always meant war with Russia, and Germany's unconditional support of Austro-Hungarian action meant that a World War was thus inevitable: war with Serbia meant war with Russia; war with Russia means war with France. This is fundamentally revealed in the fact that Germany declared war first on France and Russia immediately after the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, and Germany's criminal complicity in The Great War is further demonstrated by the violation of sovereignty of and the invasion through Belgium, which prompted British response due to the 1839 Treaty of London.

As Garb said, Germany had a massively vested interest in seeing Russian military rearmament and modernisation halted, and saw the First World War as a now-or-never opportunity to crush a potentially stronger Russia in its cradle. Furthermore, the blatant imperialism of Germany is demonstrated in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in which they essentially annexed the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine.

Germany thus not only encouraged and facilitated a local tension into a World War, it technically started the war via immediate unprovoked declarations, and in spirit also wanted a war. Germany's responsibility is, I feel, is undeniable.

However, an addendum must be added so that my feeling must not be misconstrued: the use of the noun Germany is heavily misleading as one can have several interpretations of the word. By Germany do I mean the nation, the state, the government, the people? I mean Wilhelmine Germany, Imperial Germany, the Second Reich. Arguing that the German people, or the successive Weimar Republic and Ebert's government was complicit in or shares responsibility for the First World War is something which I am not doing, which of course necessarily leads on to whether the reparations and guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles was fair. That is another issue for another time, but it is too easy to conflate Weimar Germany's innocence and the unfairness of Versailles with the notion of German non-responsibility for the First World War.

[Roma_Victrix]

However, an addendum must be added so that my feeling must not be misconstrued: the use of the noun Germany is heavily misleading as one can have several interpretations of the word. By Germany do I mean the nation, the state, the government, the people? I mean Wilhelmine Germany, Imperial Germany, the Second Reich. Arguing that the German people, or the successive Weimar Republic and Ebert's government was complicit in or shares responsibility for the First World War is something which I am not doing, which of course necessarily leads on to whether the reparations and guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles was fair. That is another issue for another time, but it is too easy to conflate Weimar Germany's innocence and the unfairness of Versailles with the notion of German non-responsibility for the First World War.

A fair position to take, really, and I couldn't agree more.

[hellheaven1987]

Uh....no. Austria-Hungary declared war first on Serbia.

It was ultimately because Germany declared war on Russia that put the whole situation unstoppable; if Germany did not declare war on Russia there was at least some rooms for negotiation and France probably would not jump in.

[Stavroforos]

Wasn't it Niall Ferguson who argued that if Britain had stayed out of the war, the Schliefen plan would have worked, France would have been knocked out and Russia defeated and Serbia conquered, thus reducing the costliness of the war to everyone involved? I mean, I personally find it a ridiculous idea if that's the case, and I don't know what can be said about how France would have fought against the Germans with a high degree of certainty, though their defeat was much more likely.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

But if France hadn't began mobilizing then it would have just remained a two on two war and not an actual World War. Germany wasn't interested in France, rather France was interested Germany

Russia doesn't want to leave the Balkans and neither does Austria so both of them need to fight it out. Problem with that is that never in a thousand years could Austria stand up to both Serbia and Russia on their own and they would obviously lose. So Germany needs to back them up. It is quite possible that many countries saw this war as a solution to diplomatic issues and so were not totally reluctant to go to war.

It should not be alright to white wash Germany but we shouldn't carry the blame on to Germany either. The fact that Imperialism was so evident on every side probably means that no one cares if there was a war but rather to what scale and how many dead. In that case if Germany had absolutely crushed all of the Allies rather quickly with a minimal loss of life then would we even be having this discussion? Would anyone care about the war like we have for the past hundred years? Suppose that France was the instigator and the loser then would we see France in the same light that Germany has been seen? I think yes.

Wasn't it Niall Ferguson who argued that if Britain had stayed out of the war, the Schliefen plan would have worked, France would have been knocked out and Russia defeated and Serbia conquered, thus reducing the costliness of the war to everyone involved? I mean, I personally find it a ridiculous idea if that's the case, and I don't know what can be said about how France would have fought against the Germans with a high degree of certainty, though their defeat was much more likely.

I think he did but I disagree. Britain was needed to ultimately end the war rather than bringing it to a deadly stalemate all around. Moreover the Schlieffen plan wouldn't have worked, it was a pretty stupid plan. Perhaps if Germany had opted to fight just on the French border then the war on the East would have been won by Germany and I guess France and Germany would likely make peace, perhaps Germany would seek to press its luck and invade France and then pull a Versailles on France? Who knows.

[Aymer de Valence]

Austria-Hungary wanted a war and Germany gave them a blank check against Serbia. They are both solely to blame...

[hellheaven1987]

Austria-Hungary wanted a war and Germany gave them a blank check against Serbia. They are both solely to blame...

Lets be honest if US Vice President Joe Biden was assassined by Good Taliban on US soil and FBI found out it was connected to some Pakistani military branch, you think US would not forcefully send in FBI into Pakistan for a joint-investigation?

Unfortunately Serbia 1914 is exactly like today's Pakistan, where civilian government had no idea what the its military was doing and its military had no idea what each of its departments was doing.

[Keyser]

But if France hadn't began mobilizing then it would have just remained a two on two war and not an actual World War. Germany wasn't interested in France, rather France was interested Germany

Russia doesn't want to leave the Balkans and neither does Austria so both of them need to fight it out. Problem with that is that never in a thousand years could Austria stand up to both Serbia and Russia on their own and they would obviously lose. So Germany needs to back them up. It is quite possible that many countries saw this war as a solution to diplomatic issues and so were not totally reluctant to go to war.

Not entirely true.

The germans argued self defence for their war with Russia and mobilised as well...

Russia's mobilisation, being so slow wasn't necessarilly the end of negotiations on her part. But if the german wanted to fight a war according to their plan, they had to launch their attack as soon as possible, before Russia was mobilised.

However, with Austria-Hungary's ultimatum of 23 July - and her declaration of war with Serbia five days later, the approach of war was rapidly hastened. The day after Serbia received Austria-Hungary's declaration of war, 29 July, the capital Belgrade was placed under bombardment.

Mobilisation of Armies

Russia mobilised the following day, 30 July, as did Austria-Hungary. The French, unwilling to start hostilities themselves, and painfully aware that this might serve only to alienate British sympathies, chose to withdraw their troops some 10 km all along the German border.

On 31 July Germany demanded of Russia that she immediately demobilise, while requiring from France - with an answer expected within 12 hours - a declaration of neutrality in the event of war with Russia. Germany's justification - that of self-defence - was regarded dimly by the French government, who replied that France would act in accordance with her own interests.

Panic across Europe

With no answer received to Germany's ultimatum the next day from Russia, both Germany and France ordered mobilisation on 1 August. Stock exchanges panicked and many were closed. Later that evening Germany formally declared war with Russia, despite Wilhelm's twelfth-hour panicked decision to try and abort the German invasion of Belgium and France (ignored by his Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke).

Germany delivered an ultimatum to Belgium on the evening of 2 August, requiring that she remain neutral while German troops occupied the country while en route for France. The following day the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, announced to Parliament that Britain would fight to defend Belgian neutrality if necessary. At last Britain had openly stated her position.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

What you are saying is that France and Germany both mobilized then. Which is my point exactly, anyone who was directly involved was prepared to mobilize, except Britain since they had nothing to mobilize. Either way Britain was technically backing France. It's not like Germany wanted anything from France anyway, France wanted Alsace but that was not really their reason for going to war.

The only reason anyone cares is because of the high amount of deaths. I would say what is more important is who started the war but instead we should care more about what was done when the war ended.

[Keyser]

France mobilised because of the German ultimatum to Russia (and her, if she didn't declare neutrality) and mobilisation, another time it's the german side that declared the war first, both to Russia (who still hadn't declared war to Austria) and France, we know they were allied and France would have backed Russia, but the german could have avoided the war, they didn't.
Read the despatches of the british and french ambassadors in Berlin during the july crisis in my link...

[ShockBlast]

What you are saying is that France and Germany both mobilized then. Which is my point exactly, anyone who was directly involved was prepared to mobilize, except Britain since they had nothing to mobilize. Either way Britain was technically backing France. It's not like Germany wanted anything from France anyway, France wanted Alsace but that was not really their reason for going to war.

The only reason anyone cares is because of the high amount of deaths. I would say what is more important is who started the war but instead we should care more about what was done when the war ended.

That was the only reason France would go to war with Germany.Who the hell goes to war without a goal?Real life isn`t like a Paradox game.

[Stavroforos]

That was the only reason France would go to war with Germany.Who the hell goes to war without a goal?Real life isn`t like a Paradox game.

I think that there can be goals in wars that aren't always summed up by neat territorial acquisitions.

[hellheaven1987]

France mobilised because of the German ultimatum to Russia (and her, if she didn't declare neutrality) and mobilisation, another time it's the german side that declared the war first, both to Russia (who still hadn't declared war to Austria) and France, we know they were allied and France would have backed Russia, but the german could have avoided the war, they didn't.

Technically if Germany did not declare war on Russia, France probably would not got drag into war as I remember its alliance with Russia was a defensive one. Similarly, Germany also did not need to declare war on Russia as Russia would probably declare war on AH anyway, which automatically brought Germany into war without a damned formal DoW and made Russia looked like aggressor.