Who started WW1 derail.

[LlywelynII]

What are you talking about? Germany did nothing wrong. All can be blamed on Belgium decision to mobilise first.

I know you think your sarcasm is cute, but Serbia mobilized first (if we're playing that game) and Germany's mobilization (including against France via Belgium) was in response to Russia's mobilization against it and would've been ordered regardless of Belgium's status.

Also, fwiw, Wiki's best detailed timeline seems to be in its July Crisis article, which implies that Germany began its invasion before Belgium issued its mobilization order. It doesn't give a timestamp for when the first bit of the invasion occurred or when on the first Belgium issued its mobilization order. This Telegraph page has more granular detail and shows the Germans mobilizing at 5 pm, after France. [edit: Apparently Belgium did mobilize sometime on 31 July, not that it really mattered in the face of Russia's mobilization and Germany's plans in that eventuality.]

 

[BBBD316]

You are all asking the wrong question. It was not a nation responsible for war it was a class.

And if it wasn’t going to be the nobles it would have been the rich.

 

[IsadorBG]

I know you think your sarcasm is cute, but Serbia mobilized first (if we're playing that game) and Germany's mobilization (including against France via Belgium) was in response to Russia's mobilization against it and would've been ordered regardless of Belgium's status.

Also, fwiw, Wiki's best detailed timeline seems to be in its July Crisis article, which implies that Germany began its invasion before Belgium issued its mobilization order. It doesn't give a timestamp for when the first bit of the invasion occurred or when on the first Belgium issued its mobilization order.

Nana Belgium definitely mobilized first. And whatever were the Germans intentions do not matter because well, Belgium mobilized first. So all sins are forgiven.

Belgium raised the gun. German shooting first was the only logical course from then. If Germany had not invaded Belgium, they would all be speaking Belgian by now. And we can't have that, can we?

And while Serbia and Russia actions were definitely reprehensible which fully legitimized German self-defensive actions and the subsequent enactments of the mitteleuropa plan to preserve peace, or else!

They were still far from the evil perpetrated by Belgium.
For one, Belgium had no stake in the crisis, yet still choose to provoke the peace seeking Wermacht, two times no less.

 

[LlywelynII]

You are all asking the wrong question. It was not a nation responsible for war it was a class.

And if it wasn’t going to be the nobles it would have been the rich.

And if it wasn't going to be the rich, it would have been the poor.

Prewar Europe was a timebomb of nationalism, social Darwinism, eugenics, and resentment. There's a stronger case to be made for monarchy having preserved the peace as long as it lasted than for the common man of the era to have been a voice of pacificism.

Belgium raised the gun. German shooting first was the only logical course from then. If Germany had not invaded Belgium, they would all be speaking Belgian by now. And we can't have that, can we?

As mentioned, my wife is apparently fine with that, not knowing that Belgium doesn't really exist.

 

[thedarkendstar]

Sometimes I feel like WW1 is more divisive then the sequel and that one has spawned countless arguements about tanks.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Every belligerent is responsible, by its negligences, by idiocy or by malevolence, for World War I (except obviously, among belligerent states, the very small fraction of socialists members of parliaments who refused to vote war chests). However, when you look archives -and it is well established by historians, including by German historians*- you'll see that, among all belligerents, only one wished a big war to purge European geo-policy: Germany. Every other were reluctant, including Austria-Hungary which wanted a war contained within Balkans...

So, who started WW1? Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the former declared the first state of war, while the secrets services of the latter committed -against the willingness of the government- the first act of war by proxy.

Who did the war? Every belligerents.

But who encouraged (and manipulated) Austria-Hungary to declare the state of war, perfectly knowing that it might trigger a Grand War and hoping that it would trigger it? Germany. Only Germany.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I#The_Fischer_thesis

 

[stevieji]

The posters continuing to blame the Germans are mostly doing so based on the specious reasoning used at the time and apparently still in some curricula, which is why I was asking what people's high school history books said in different countries.

The position of the Hunnophobes is that Germany should have waited until France actually shanked them in the back.

It seems that people who hold a different opinion to yours have either been brainwashed by their countries' secondary education systems (and have presumably never picked up a book since), or they are suffering from an irrational hatred of Germany.

 

[Avernite]

Sometimes I feel like WW1 is more divisive then the sequel and that one has spawned countless arguements about tanks.

That's because the Allies in WW2 made sure it was clear Germany started it, bending over backwards to avoid giving offense before it started (and quite a bit after, see the Saar 'offensive' )

 

[Davisx3m]

 

[Geriander]

But who encouraged (and manipulated) Austria-Hungary to declare the state of war, perfectly knowing that it might trigger a Grand War and hoping that it would trigger it? Germany. Only Germany.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I#Later_works

Most of the theories that you linked to seem to disagree with Germany hoping for a Great War.

 

[Captain Frakas]

My intention was to give this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I#The_Fischer_thesis
In order to get the whole part, from Fischer to the Post 2000 included.

Not just the immediate reactions to Fischer thesis.

 

[LlywelynII]

It seems that people who hold a different opinion to yours have either been brainwashed by their countries' secondary education systems (and have presumably never picked up a book since), or they are suffering from an irrational hatred of Germany.

Nah. My wife had a very good explanation for her beliefs and why it was fine for Germany to allow itself to be shanked.

Every belligerent is responsible, by its negligences, by idiocy or by malevolence, for World War I (except obviously, among belligerent states, the very small fraction of socialists members of parliaments who refused to vote war chests). However, when you look archives -and it is well established by historians, including by German historians*- you'll see that, among all belligerents, only one wished a big war to purge European geo-policy: Germany. Every other were reluctant, including Austria-Hungary which wanted a war contained within Balkans...

So, who started WW1? Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the former declared the first state of war, while the secrets services of the latter committed -against the willingness of the government- the first act of war by proxy.

But who encouraged (and manipulated) Austria-Hungary to declare the state of war, perfectly knowing that it might trigger a Grand War and hoping that it would trigger it? Germany. Only Germany.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_of_World_War_I#The_Fischer_thesis

This is also quite reasoned and fair.

It's the rest of y'all who should explain yourselves with more than 'twas the Hun'. (And that wasn't my point about the secondary education: I'm legit curious what the national educational biases are, apart from how badly any particular forumite fell for them.)

View attachment 559599

Nah, the missus settled that. Now we're just looking for good reasons for blaming them.

Sometimes I feel like WW[I ] is more divisive then the sequel and that one has spawned countless arguements about tanks.

Of course the Eurowide debacle with Christmas miracles among the troops, crying diplomats, blooddrunk generals, and broken empires is more divisive than the one where one side was so fascistic that their system of government became a universal slur, discredited essentially any idea remotely associated with them except hard science, and even convinced their own people they were in the wrong by the end. (Most gently illustrated by Mitchell and Webb:)

 

[Yakman]

Did they?

Find me a case of assassination in a political hotspot where the political ramifications of a minor conflict through treaties brought the entire world to rise up against one another at a time in which pre-programmed RAIL ROAD SCHEDULES based on the lessons of the American War of the Rebellion, since applied to the Franco Prussian War, came into play. These are very carefully modulated to put as much rolling stock into motion as possible at one time. They are carved into stone and cannot be altered without repercussions being felt throughout the chain - and you know what they say about chains and their weakest links. Permutations are pre-calculated well in advance, recorded, and when their number is called the run on that specific timeline. The trains ran on time, on both sides of the front.

This does not explain why only Germany is to blame. Nor do you identify at which moment Germany should have laid down her saber in the face of probable French retaliation for the recent - public - humiliation inflicted on the Napoleonic Pride on the battlefield.

?

you are asking me to find a time when history exactly repeated itself? sorry bud, no can do.

also, the Franco-Prussian War had been fought 44 years earlier. This is not recent humiliation. That border was status quo. Some people didn't like it, but AS HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE France wasn't planning to invade Germany because some Serbian shot some Hapsburg.

 

[Yakman]

The heir of A-H got shot by a state affiliated assassin in a contested territory. Backing down after some sabre rattling would simply not do given the circumstances.

sounds like something that can be worked out by diplomats. that's what they are paid for, right?

 

[Enravota]

* A 'Conspiracy Group' of Serbian officers plotted and successfully executed an assassination plot against the Crown Prince of the Empire because he was pacifying their leader's attempts to foment a Serbian revolution backed by Russia's blanket promise to protect them.

In which era does a ruling monarch not grow enraged about the death of his heir does a ruling monarch not grow enraged about the death of his son?

The Black Hand succeeded in their attempts to destroy the Empire, but they didn't get what they wanted.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, there is your literal smoking gun. The rest is all collateral damage.

You don't even need the personal drama of a monarchy to get this off the rails from the get go. This by nature a challenge to statehood itself.

sounds like something that can be worked out by diplomats. that's what they are paid for, right?

The point of such assassinations is to challenge the power of the given state. The message is that A-H can't even protect the royal family and it's clay is up for dibs. Diplomatic resolution would only further assert that A-H has no means to protect itself, so the only meaningful response for A-H is to be forceful. Even more so, when the power disparity is obviously in favour of the offended country and compromise cannot be justified on existential grounds.

 

[Swuul]

Was the question of the thread title ever answered? I did wade through a few pages, but didn't find the answer. Who did start the derail?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Was the question of the thread title ever answered? I did wade through a few pages, but didn't find the answer. Who did start the derail?

Yakman with his ww1 fanfiction.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Was the question of the thread title ever answered? I did wade through a few pages, but didn't find the answer. Who did start the derail?

Well for the germans I'd say it was von moltke when he send divisions from the west to the east that derailed it, but that was caused by von francois attack into poland, also the plan was going to be derailed anyway because even with the extra divisions it was unfeasible
for the french I'd say it was the fact that they somehow massively underestimated the german forces in the region
for the russians it was the fact that their generals were massively incompetent and their troops underequiped causing 1 army to be destroyed and 1 to be badly mauled by 1 understrength german one
for the austrians it was that there wasn't really a plan but more of a concept of a plan where they were going to win because they were going to win, also their generals were worse then the russian ones
for the italians it's because to their suprise there were mountains between them and austria

 

[Yakman]

The point of such assassinations is to challenge the power of the given state. The message is that A-H can't even protect the royal family and it's clay is up for dibs. Diplomatic resolution would only further assert that A-H has no means to protect itself, so the only meaningful response for A-H is to be forceful. Even more so, when the power disparity is obviously in favour of the offended country and compromise cannot be justified on existential grounds.

umm... Austria-Hungary tried to resolve the dispute diplomatically.

They didn't immediately declare war on Serbia. So... sorry. You are incorrect. 'Honor' did not demand raising the over-complicated banner over the ruin of Belgrade.

 

[Enravota]

umm... Austria-Hungary tried to resolve the dispute diplomatically.

They didn't immediately declare war on Serbia. So... sorry. You are incorrect. 'Honor' did not demand raising the over-complicated banner over the ruin of Belgrade.

The “diplomatic” solution that you speak of was an ultimatum, essentially submit from the get go or be stomped. Honour has nothing to do with it.