-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Generally, when a country declares war on you, you send your own army to fight them. I can't see how this is controversial.
Nothing to do with "official British views". It's because I've read the evidence (including primary sources) and reached a conclusion based on it.
It's the alternative scenarios which seems to me to be more based on nationalism than facts ("It's not fair to blame Germany!").
Austria-Hungary gets less blame (not no blame) because they were too weak to start anything themselves if they hadn't had Germany pushing them along every step of the way.
Russia isn't blamed because they didn't start any wars.
This is a fallacy, because in this case the army was "sent"(if the notion of sending includes mobilisation) before Germany declared war, and actually was the one and only cause of the German declaration of war.
This is openly wrong. The only thing that remotely resembles "pushing along" is the infamous "blank cheque", but it should be obvious to everyone that it wasn't meant as inciting Austria-Hungary at taking an aggressive stance, but rather as a chivalrous display of good will towards the last ally Germany still had. It was meant to show the readiness of Germany to go along(NOT "push along") with AH even in the worst case scenario, but certainly didn't mean that Germany wanted this worst-case scenario to happen. It is a question of intention, so it is possible for one to claim otherwise and not being formally proven wrong, but honestly you are educated enough to see that to do so would just be a display of bias or of poor knowledge of the way in which German foreign politics were handled in the early XX century.
This is nitpicking based solely on the fact that Germany took the formal step of declaring war. Rest assured, if Germany didn't do that someone else would declare war on them, and this is a move actually considered and advised by some in the German leadership, exactly in order to prevent such post-factum interpretations as yours.
The notions of mobilisation and sending an army are completely different. That had been proven multiple times in the previous decade when countries (including Russia and Austria-Hungary) had mobilised without going to war. It's attempting to conflate the two which is the fallacy.
Uh-huh. And Zimmermann smiling broadly and nodding when Hoyos talked about annexing northern Serbia and giving the rest to Bulgaria, and Bethmann-Hollweg agreeing and urging the Austrians that they must take "immediate action against Serbia", are not "incitement" in your view?
Few historians today actually claim that Germany "wanted this worst-case scenario to happen", to use your words - though I note that the most prominent advocate of that view was a German himself, so this isn't some British nationalistic thing as Herbert West is implying. But the German government certainly wanted to encourage Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia and prove its strength as a Great Power. Zimmermann's one regret, according to a letter he wrote after the war, was that Germany didn't do enough to push A-H into an immediate attack on Serbia, and gave the other Powers a chance to react. It's just that Germany assumed that thy'd be able to intimidate Russia into not supporting Serbia- an assumption that proved false.
Who, exactly, was planning to declare war on Germany in July 1914, if the Germans hadn't attacked them?
Russia and Austria were glaring at each other , their fingers hovering above their holstered guns, while a musical watch chimed out. But Germany was the one who drew first.
You mean, did they encourage the Serbians to reject the Austrian ultimatum out of hand and promise they'd back them up whatever they decided? Not that I'm aware of. They were keen on the idea of putting the matter to an international tribunal for arbitration, actually.
Not completely different. There were war plans tightly tied to the mobilisation schedules in every country. Mobilisation is effectively the beginning of a processus which is not by itself war, but which unavoidably leads to war unless forcibly stopped. So it is true that for purely logistical reasons there is some last chance to negotiate(and this short timeframe was used for negotiation by all GPs, including Germany), but this is for all intents and purposes negotiation with someone pointing his gun at you. The fact that countries repeatedly mobilised in the decade before the war shows how closely war was avoided every time, not that mobilisation was some kind of banal means of conducting foreign policy; in my view it was not.
And I can easily give you counter-examples such as the Kaiser urging AH to accept the Serbian response to the ultimatum, or the Kaiser's reaction to the Lichnowsky telegram...I do not think it is reasonably possible to determine what stance Bethmann-Hollweg actually held, and the poor man probably didn't know any better himself. And if Zimmerman's smile is reason enough to blame Germany for the war, then what can be said of the alleged Pourtales' tears?
The fact that Fritz Fischer was German can only strike me as completely irrelevant. There are historians with different opinions in all countries.
Even if we go along with your interpretation assuming Zimmerman's stance was representative of that of the German government, and assuming the said government actually knew what it was doing(both very strong assumptions I'd say), this is enough to blame Germany for starting a local war in the Balkans; there is a long stretch from this to the blame for the world war as a whole.
Easy. Let's say Germany waits out for Russia to declare war on Austria-Hungary, so Germany finds itself in a state of war with Russia; once this is done there is little doubt France, as reluctant as it may be, declares war on Germany. The UK could have reasonably stayed out of the war but certainly no other country.
There are objective reasons why Germany was more likely to "draw first", but I don't believe "drawing first" is enough to get all the blame, unlike in an actual spaghetti western.
In fact, the Serbians were going to accept the ultimatum until the Russians told them they didn't have to.
That doesn't really mean they weren't encouraging the Serbians to reject the ultimatum. In fact, in order the put the matter before a tribunal they would have to reject the ultimatum first.
Then you are being bigoted. He analyzes the war from various angles and doesn´t hammer the notion that UK would been better off if it didn´t join the war. Thinking he is a crap historian because he said BS sometimes is being very narrow minded. Didn´t you ever say BS? Does that mean everything you say is automatically crap? Hell no.
Because dismiss the argument because it´s made by person X is the very definition of bigot?
What matters is the argument. NOT the person. Shame on you.
What´s in the book you just read that makes it so good?
What matters is the argument. NOT the person. Shame on you.
What´s in the book you just read that makes it so good?
I bought this book a few months ago but have yet to read it, I kinda forgot about it actually.
I'll have to crack it open.
I'll have to crack it open.
Gee, lighten up a bit. There's no requirement to read every book everyone ever writes to prove you are open minded, which is quite impossible. It's a nonsensical standard to hold someone too. Especially if someone's already read something by the person and think they are crap. It's a pretty good way to decide what not to read.
And note he's not rejecting the argument, since the argument was not laid out. He's rejecting Ferguson himself as an authority. If the argument is sound it convinces others and you encounter it in writings by others, no?
RRW, does MacMillan weigh in on how much the politicians' actions were constrained by public opinion?
This was a popular theme in history in days past that I pretty much buy. One version is that to negotiate during this endless crises, you needed to make a credible threat. But in the age of conscription a credible threat meant that you needed public opinion on your side, so you needed to ramp up the rhetoric in public. And then even if you had planned to back down on the main issue after taking a slice of Cameron or trade concessions in China or something it got very difficult. Public outrage over the secret deals that Izolvski wanted to make (or had already made) seems a compelling argument.
But Clark argued this was overrated--politicians used it to rationalize things they wanted to do anyway or lean on political opponents.
I note that many arguments about "blame" seem to channel these things, e.g., Russia could not avoid backing Serbia because of pan-Slavic public sentiment.
This was a popular theme in history in days past that I pretty much buy. One version is that to negotiate during this endless crises, you needed to make a credible threat. But in the age of conscription a credible threat meant that you needed public opinion on your side, so you needed to ramp up the rhetoric in public. And then even if you had planned to back down on the main issue after taking a slice of Cameron or trade concessions in China or something it got very difficult. Public outrage over the secret deals that Izolvski wanted to make (or had already made) seems a compelling argument.
But Clark argued this was overrated--politicians used it to rationalize things they wanted to do anyway or lean on political opponents.
I note that many arguments about "blame" seem to channel these things, e.g., Russia could not avoid backing Serbia because of pan-Slavic public sentiment.
So let me get this straight: if I choose not to read a book by any given historian, I'm being a bigot? You don't know what bigotry means, Beaga. Have you read the book this thread is about? I hope so, because logically if you haven't, you are a bigot.
Very much so, it's another of the main themes. She doesn't overweight it up does show that at some critical moments, politicians were at least influenced by public opinion.
I didn't read that book but i don't really get 1914 discussion going on when talking about the causes of WWI and who was guilty for it.
Mobilization chain in 1914 forced nations to to tie their foreign policy to such a simple military matter. Bismarck or Metternich would probably laughed at it. Anyway, it was just a practical result of something bigger. In that practical context, it doesn't matter who shot the first bullet or who gave whom a blank cheque. Germany's strategic position forced it to be a more aggresive and pre-emptive, another practical result, not a cause.
Cause of WWI was imperalism. The question is why did Germany want to create its colonial empire ? Why did Britain want to hold most of colonies under its control and to not give a share to others including France ? Great War did happen because there was a strong revisionist power who joined the game late. Only guilt of Germany was to be latecomer. Imperialism was of course guilt of all participants. No doubt, all the previous crises and alliances paved the way for the showdown between Germany and Britain. All of those were again practical results of imperialism. In short, everyone's motive was money in WWI.
Mobilization chain in 1914 forced nations to to tie their foreign policy to such a simple military matter. Bismarck or Metternich would probably laughed at it. Anyway, it was just a practical result of something bigger. In that practical context, it doesn't matter who shot the first bullet or who gave whom a blank cheque. Germany's strategic position forced it to be a more aggresive and pre-emptive, another practical result, not a cause.
Cause of WWI was imperalism. The question is why did Germany want to create its colonial empire ? Why did Britain want to hold most of colonies under its control and to not give a share to others including France ? Great War did happen because there was a strong revisionist power who joined the game late. Only guilt of Germany was to be latecomer. Imperialism was of course guilt of all participants. No doubt, all the previous crises and alliances paved the way for the showdown between Germany and Britain. All of those were again practical results of imperialism. In short, everyone's motive was money in WWI.
This is one point of view, which was that of Lenin and of radical Socialists, but other people have defended different points of view and did so at length. Practically every point you state as an unconditional truth is in fact extremely controversial and complicated when you look at it in detail.
You know there will be still some people who will argue against a fact that is so obvious when it comes to history. That's not physics that you can prove your point with scientific observation and formulas. These are where i ended up when i study histroy.
Of course i respect other opinions but 1914 discussion seems very irrelevant to me. Could being more aggressive and pre-emptive make a power CAUSE of a war because it is simply dictated by practical results of geopolitical situation ? More relevant question would be why the hell Europeans who share more or less common cultural, genetic and historical heritage want to kill each other ? Why the hell they want to tear apart each other for colonies ? Why the hell they are so eager to fight for some little piece of territory ?
I don't say nobody should discuss event leading up to war. On the contrary i think the discussion is very valuable but searching the cause of war under these events seem to me as missing the big picture.
And yes this is more or less the same opinion with Lenin and Bolsheviks but i wouldn't really call it as just opinion of "Lenin and his friends". This "opinion" is a theory of Marx which views the history from materialist perspective. And Marx's theory is not only used by Bolsheviks either, it is still used by scholars to explain human historical development.
Replying as "Imperialism" is simplistic yes. More accurate answer would be "A revisionist power strong enough trying to shatter the existing status-quo which is naturally unfavorable to it".