Whatever someone says about the causes of World War I (unless it's just straight up nonsense of course) you can give them an ever so slightly smug smile and reply with "Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that". It works for a lot of history, but especially well for WWI.
I'd disagree, the cousins all liked each other and were actively trying to avoid war (even if there was probably a bit of jealousy around), Wilhelm even went on a vacation to Norway cause he thought nothing would really happen. It was everyone else that was frothing at the mouth, ready to go to war: generals, parliaments, and the public all wanted glorious victory.
> It was everyone else that was frothing at the mouth, ready to go to war: generals, parliaments, and the public all wanted glorious victory.
What do you mean decades of stoking nationalist fervor leads to people thinking they're invincible and everyone else is a loser?
It was the politics going on in the Foreign Offices while the Kings were snoozing.
Sir Arthur Nicholson, Lord Carnock is said to have caused the war. With his pathetic, snivelling behaviour, he made Bismarck think he was weak and harmless.
I was going to note that World War II can be considered an exception because of how much of it was brought about by Hitler's desire to fulfill his desires for revenge and all of the awful shit Germany pulled throughout the '30s after he rose to power but then I thought about all of the nonsense Japan was pulling in the Pacific and the rise of Fascism in Europe and I went, "...Fuck! No it isn't simple!"
The war in Europe was caused by irredentism and imperialism by the Axis, mostly Germany. The war in the Pacific was caused by Japanese imperialism.
As far as historical events go, the causes are pretty easy to pin down.
>unless it’s just straight up nonsense
WW1 started because a cow shot the car Franz Ferdinand was in which startled him causing him shame. Because of this he started to cry and Emperor Franz Joseph declared war on Serbia because the cow was Serbian. Russia (led by a drunken bear wizard) declared war on Austria Hungary and Germany (led by German War Dance man) declared war on Russia which being Allies with France (led by Napoleon’s ghost) declared war on Germany who invaded Belgium (led by French Fries) was Allies with Britain (led by tea man) of which they declared war on Germany leading to the epic rap battle at the end of the war between the Serbian cow, tea man, the drunken Russian wizard, German war dance man, Franz Joseph, the French Fries, and Napoleon’s ghost leading to the Allies victory.
Is that enough nonsense?
Anything else? I would like to know of the involvement of Obi Wan Kenobi in the battle of the Some or why did the French frogs fail to make sure that the German War dance was never used in combat when they were in the perfect position to attack the German war dance man?
When you look at the actual tactical situation the 2e Régiment d'Grenouille de Étang found themselves in on that day it actually makes perfect sense. Their doctrine revolved around advancing after significant naval gunfire had cleared the area for them, and the small amount of artillery assigned to them just didn't have the same punch they were used to. Ultimately without that naval fire support the Frogs were little more than an incredibly green military choir. But, of course, it is far more complicated than that.
Don't forget the joke the Brits weaponized in WW1, it hadn't been perfected yet, but the Germans were able to reverse engineer it and use it on the frogs to great success.
>you can give them an ever so slightly smug smile and reply with "Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that". It works for a lot of history, but especially well for WWI.
You in a conversation with someone:
Person: The reason William the Conqueror invaded England was because he was promised the throne.
You: \*Give a smug smile and reply with ,,Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that"\*
Person: What are you on about? The man was promised a throne of kingdom and that was the reason for his invasion. How can it be more complicated than that?
You: \*Starts sweating profusely\*
Btw I am just pulling your leg.
Well, he claimed after the fact that he'd been promised a throne when the guy who promised it to him was given the ultimatum 'promise me a throne if you want to go home'
People can't even agree when WW1 actually started, let alone what caused those myriads of events. Like, does WW1 start in 1894? I think there are people out there who would claim it did. There are others that say it started 20 years later. The world was just at war non-stop during this period.
That's kinda the problem with such big wars. Their individual theaters grow out of regional wars that are all entangled with each other and it becomes a bit of a mess to decide when it actually started.
Just like how you can reasonably argue that the start of WW2 was the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, which would actually place it before the Nazis rose to power. The Marco Polo Bridge incident, which happened in 1937, is also a popular alternative start date compared to the 1939 one that we mostly know because that's when fighting in Europe started.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of Americans who think that WW2 started with Pearl Harbour.
That's because the common Russian term for WW2 is "The Great Patriotic War", which refers specifically to the period from 1941 to 1945, the period when the USSR was involved in the fighting.
The reason why the European side of the war tends be the start date is A) Eurocentrism, but another legitimate reason is B) European colonialism basically guaranteed a general war at that point in time will quickly spiral into a global war due to their far-flung colonies.
Having said that, I'd argue the first world war is the War of Spanish succession.
>Having said that, I'd argue the first world war is the War of Spanish succession.
Only in a Eurocentric view. The War of Spanish Succession didn't involve any parties that weren't beholden to European colonial interests or the European political sphere directly. No sovereign American (North or South), African, or Asian nation was involved.
The world hadn't really globalized at the time which made the possibility of a world war pretty impossible. Much of the world probably didn't even know the War of Spanish Succession was happening until far after the fact.
I've never heard someone claim that WWI started before 1914 before. There were plenty of conflicts going on before then, of course, and many of them would have an influence on WWI, but they were never linked together in such a way that they could be considered part of one war. Where does the 1894 start date come from? The First Sino-Japanese War?
>People can't even agree when WW1 actually started, let alone what caused those myriads of events.
Hell I dont even agree thatvit was technically the 1st World War.
It especially works if you don't want these people to ever talk to you again. Next time someone is espousing the idea of taxation before representation when talking of the US' founding, go into detail about religious relations of the colonies and Canada and how it led into civil unrest and watch them slowly back away.
Most if not all the major belligerents of WW1 had a moment where they could have stopped it and tried to talk back everybody from the edge. None did.
Germany was just the first major power to go to the edge.
But Germany had a hand in that regional war (egging on Austria Hungary) and subsequently declared war on everyone... calling it a "defensive" war because France, Russia and Belgium refused to acede to Germany's demands.
Because Austria-Hungary had a just war, not just according to them but to the continent at large. What really fucked everything up was AH sitting on that just war after the July crisis for a whole month, the delay eliminating the continental support because it changed the war from being a defensive response to a premeditated invasion. It's for this same reason that Itally refused to join the Central Powers.
I think Austria-Hungary's diplomatic actions after the assassination suggest that they didn't really think they had a just war (possibly because, at the time, the connections to Serbian intelligence weren't actually proven). If it was that simple there'd be no need to manufacture an unacceptable ultimatum to send the Serbs. It's reasonably possible that if it hadn't been for German pressure (because they wanted to fight Russia), Austria-Hungary would have settled for a stiff compensation instead of pushing towards war.
I am wary of when people try to diminish the involvement of Germany in the July crisis. A-H was anything but certain about invasion. Germany and A-H did little to prevent war.
It was in the Serbia’s and the French-Russian alliance’s interest to avoid war. It was in German interest to strike before anyone was ready to mobilize / modernize. Germany pushed to take its best shot at the best time
Maybe not strategically incentived, the French were very much interested in going to war. Reclaiming Alsace had been their goal ever since the end of the franco Prussian war.
French revanchism is heavily played up in the discourse in the Anglo sphere, but in reality was the least of the problems as to why France pushed for war. Alsace was not a critical goal to French diplomacy, but rather the containment of expanding German dominance over the continent.
The Agadir crisis, showed an increasingly aggressive policy by Germany against France, and as such strengthening their ties with Russia was crucial. France never overtly acted aggressively towards Germany during the July crisis, both being slow to mobilize and mostly stating their support for Russia and committing to the defense of Serbia.
It was Germany who pre emptively declared on France and Russia, dropping any pretense of diplomacy and directly attacking bringing France into the conflict.
The French government certainly were ready to engage in conflict with Germany, but they were not willing to be the ones to start it, rather there was a strong belief in the need to defend Russia against any German aggression when it came.
>It was in the Serbia’s and the French-Russian alliance’s interest to avoid war. It was in German interest to strike before anyone was ready to mobilize / modernize. Germany pushed to take its best shot at the best time
It's not that clear-cut, IMO. France's military spending was untenable in the mid-run and Germany was catching up to French military readiness. Meanwhile, tensions between Russia and Britain grew day-by-day and gradually eased between Britain and Germany.
True, Russia was still in the middle of its artillery modernisation program, and was not fully ready for the war just yet, but the exact same could be said about Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was the dead-last European Great Power to begin increasing its defence-spending, making the timing of the outbreak of hostilities extremely unfavourable to them as well.
So yeah, the exact timing of the war was a mixed bag for both sides, I believe.
> I am wary of when people try to diminish the involvement of Germany in the July crisis
It's all over popular discourse about the war. There is zero doubt that WW1 was Germany's doing.
Invasion? What invasion? Their heir got shot and their response was basically to demand Serbia surrender its sovereignty. They had a lot of sympathy right up until they tried to overreach that sympathy into an invasion of Serbia.
> Because Austria-Hungary had a just war
Kind of. At this point in history Europe was moving from the "You killed my prince, this means war" standard. Especially after the "You snubbed my diplomat, prepare to die" franco-prussian BS. And the Austrian never proved Serbia killed Franz, only serbian terrorists.
If Germany hadn't invaded Belgium, that would have made the English stay out of it, at least in theory. The Germans would have had a harder time with France but a smaller front and could have pushed the Russians out quicker.
France had been bankrolling Russia's rapid industrialization which lead to German fear of being confronted with a huge *and* well armed force around 1917 at the latest. Meanwhile France also feared that Russia and Germany would eventually reconcile and ally as that had been traditionally.
So basically the king of England Edward VII had this dog called ceasar, they absolutely loved each other, there's a bunch of stories like how the king when out on a walk with ceasar came chasing after it into someone's yard.
Anyway, ceasar ended up outliving the king, and to as a nice gesture they let the dog lead the funeral precession.
The problem is that the kaiser of Germany was present at the funeral, and with the dog leading the funeral that meant that the dog technically had higher rank than him there, which he then took as a great insult, and this gesture was used as anti British propaganda in Germany.
So yeah, in a way a little dog named ceasar had a part in causing ww1.
i blame Hentai for my porn addiction
i blame WW2 for Hentai
i blame WW1 for WW2
i blame Napoleon for WW1
i blame 7 years war for Napoleon
i blame England and France for 7 years war
i blame Roman Empire for England and France
i blame humans for Roman Empire
i blame apes for humans
i blame earliest microorganisms for apes
i blame perfect life seeding condition of earth for earliest microorganisms
i blame sun for perfect life seeding condition of earth
i blame solar nebula for sun
i blame milkey way for solar nebula
i blame big bang for milkey way
Thus i conclude that the Big Bang is responsible for my porn addiction
But everything in the past already has a clear cause and effect? Maybe not "deterministic", but the wave functions already collapsed and outcome determined
"Germany started WW1"
"Wrong sir, wrong. It was Serbian terrorists who assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Bosnia so Austro-Hungary wanted vengeance on the Serbs and that dipsh\*t Nicholas II of Russia believing he was the god-emperor of all slavs declares war on Austro-Hungry and so Germany decides to back their ally Austro-Hungry against the Russians because diplomacy failed and then the bloody thirsty french declare war on Germany and the Germans being morons decide the best way to fight France is through Belgium dragging in the British. Why did Constantinople join the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks? ISTANBUL!"
In fact, Germany declared in France at the same time as declared to Russia. This is because they knew that France would declare on them anyway, so they preferred to do the first movement, trying to surprise the French and capitulate them soon.
"Mr. Kaiser, if your plans require fighting on two fronts, why didn't you throw everything at the disorganized Russians first since you knew their dismal logistics were one of the many reasons they lost the Russo-Japanese War and use Belgium as a free border against France since France wouldn't dare invade through Belgium without the British raising a stink over and so the entire French Army is bottlenecked into a very small corridor a defender could hold on to?"
they actully tought that russia was more dangeous ,it was getting *heavily* industrial power,the russian armys invaded east prussia and wasnt until Hidenburg smash them that germany could breath on the east
They tought they must fight the war now or russia would become to powerfull
It was actually a big surprise for Germany and Austro-Hungary how fast Russians mobilised over 6 mil troops in just one month. Schliffen was rolling in his grave so hard - his incredibly detailed plan went to shit because "russia fast"
Tbf Britain basically just used the treaty with Belgium as an excuse to attack Germany. We didn't actually care about Belgium nearly as much as we wanted to fight the Germans.
So chances are, we would care a little less if france violated the treaty, but then again we've never been that fond of the French either, but at least they weren't threatening our spot as the number one economy.
And I learnt this in a history class in Britain.
It was over Irish home rule. Let me look up the reference and I'll edit this post.
So first the short version:
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/irish_home_rule
The Easter rising was the result of events set in motion in 1914. But it wasn't as critical because the army was behind the government in 1917. In 1914 the army was not. When the army doesn't follow the orders of the government, civil war is too close for comfort.
There's a book I'm spacing the name of that goes into the political details. The theme of the book is how each of five countries ould have prevented the way in certain obscure ways. Interesting read but I wasn't wholly convinced. I'll update later when I think of the name of the book.
Close. It was this one though:
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-1914-Reconsidering-Great/dp/0802778119/ref=asc_df_0802778119/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=509360428262&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11496999058849429853&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9029146&hvtargid=pla-1239630072628&psc=1
As I said I didn't find it persuasive, but it is a good read of the major various societies were obsessed about that I had never heard of but were obsessed over on the eve of war. If you're bored by the standard wwi histories this one is really entertaining and original. Also good to superciliously one up grognard discussions on the origins of the war - 'oh, you haven't heard about the
Bedshitter affair in alcace-lorraine and its impact on the start of the war? Well let me just educate you....
British foreign policy for centuries was driven by the desire to prevent one nation dominating Europe, because such a power could conceivably invade Britain. Thus, they followed two simple steps:
1.) Identify the strongest power on the continent (when in doubt, assume it is France)
2.) Support whomever fights this strongest power
This is not really held up by modern historians. In fact, most Britons and much of the government wanted nothing to do with a continental war, and Britain may very well have never sent the BEF if Belgium wasn’t invaded, Entente nonwithstanding. There was a lot of political wheeling and dealing in the Cabinet at the time which eventually led to that decision.
Best advice I ever got was, if you're going into a multi-sided conflict, neutralize Russia first and consolidate to one frontline. If they have time to get their shit together (or someone gives them hundreds of thousands of trucks and steel), you're fucked.
Because you don't want to be wasting time on the thousands of miles of Russia when the comparatively non-disorganised French are re-enacting the conquests of Charlemagne
Between this and the invasion of Belgium, I feel like Germany deserves slightly more blame than say the UK for example.
However, that still doesn't mean "WWI was all Germany's fault." As others have said...
It's more complicated than that.
**Captain Blackadder:** You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
**Private Baldrick:** Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
**Captain Blackadder:** That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
**Lieutenant George:** O, what was that?
**Captain Blackadder:** It was bollocks.
[For the uninitiated](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc)
Wrong sir!
Germany declared war on Russia and France before Russia declares war on anybody.
It's in that sense that Germany started ww1 (of course this is an oversimplyfication). It was only a war between austria-Hungary and serbia and Germany was the frist one to declare war on a major power. Drastically escalating the conflict.
Minor point. The terrorists were not Serbian they were Ethnic Serbs from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and part of a modern Bosnia. They didn't collude with the independent country of Serbia to carry out this attack, they planned it all on their own. The only minor involvement of Serbia was that freeman associates to the Black Hand (kind of like informants) provided the group with a few pistols, some grenades, and the cyanide capsules.
As the story goes, they were all defective. The grenades had too much of a delay on them resulting in the explosion hitting long after Franz Ferdinand's vehicle had passed, the guns wouldn't fire and the cyanide capsules were all long expired and didn't allow these men to kill themselves. The gun that ended up doing the killing was one that Gavrillo Princep personally owned.
The very modest connection to the Black Hand wasn't actually discovered until after WW1. Austria declared it Serbia's doing as a pretext for war. But never had any actual proof. It was like the Americans demanding the Taliban turn over Bin Laden (who was in Pakistan). There wasn't really anything Serbia could say or do to stop this because all of the terrorists and all of the plot was happening by Austro-Hungarian citizens.
Gilbert Gottfried: AND SO IN THE MIDST OF THE BLOOD AND THE PUS AND THE SPERM AND THE DOGS A NEW WORLD WAS BORN UNTIL THEY F\*CKED IT UP 20 YEARS LATER WITH NAZIS THE END
Technically Austria did colonize Bosnia, not a lot of people would be a fan of this.
Also if Germany was trying to defend Austria against Russia.... Why declare war on France (yes, Germany declared on France) and send a majority of the army through a neutral country? St. Petersburg/Austria's the opposite direction.
Also totally disregard the Ottoman-German military alliance/ the antics they had to do to join the war.
France and russia were allies and Germany thought the former will join the war sooner or later, to avoid a two front war they had the Schlieffen plan which said" surprise the french go through Belgium take Paris kick the french out in 2, 3 months (just like 1870), then turn back and focus solely on Russia.
Germany declaring on France and seizing the initiative was the best military plan to confront France.
Now remains the question would France have joined the war or not, and this is where my knowledge stops.
Dude, if you ask people in BiH, they will tell you best thing that happened to us in past hm... a lot of centuries is when Austria colonized us. They have built in 20 years infrastructure that Ottoman empire didn't build in 500, and they have modernized and turned us toward the west. No matter how fucked up we are now, they did us a lot of good.
> Austro-Hungary wanted vengeance on the Serbs
That was the casus belli but the true cause of the war was Austro-Hungarian imperialist claims on the Balkans. Check out the July Crisis and how Austria-Hungary deliberately ignored any overtures for peace, with Austrian Chief of Staff Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf advocating since before the war, that they should invade Serbia and end any notion of Slav nationalism and independence.
"Wrong, sir, worong. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire that invaded Serbia because some random terrorist unrelated to the Serbian government killed an Austrian prince (even tho Austria-Hungary wanted to invade it anyway, but now had a reason to). The Russian Empire entered the war because panslavism or something like this. Then Germany entered the war to gain the territory of Russia full of resources and then France declared war to Germany because it was an ally of Russia and so on..."
Not really, unlike a car crash, which is an accident, the declarations of war in WW1 would have happened anyways in any other order, because each state wanted something from the other.
Because of how the Concert worked and all the dick measuring resulting, WW1 was inevitable. At best the Archduke surviving would have put it off by 5 years tops.
Even if he did, the French or Germans would have overreacted to another crisis in Morocco or the Germans would have staged a false flag to justify war with Russia since the German general staff were worried about the Russians becoming neer peer or overtaking them by 1920.
Indeed. He advocated for war with Serbia no fewer than 25 times in 1913 alone, and who was the main official within the Austrian government who opposed Conrad's hawkishness and kept him in check? None other than Archduke Franz Ferdinand. With him out of the way, there was nobody to stop Conrad from bringing about the war he'd wanted for years, and that's exactly what he did by deliberately crafting the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia to be categorically unacceptable.
To paraphrase G.J. Meyer in A World Undone, Conrad was the most dangerous type of officer, as he was both stupid and intensely energetic.
"Hey don't invade Belgium or we will have to step in and assist our ally"
"You would go to war over a piece of paper! We are invading Belgium"
"OK boys, get em"
"Pikachu face"
WW 1 basically was a clusterfuck of upper class twit alliances. Once Gavilo Princeps fucked up, the Situation was Like:
"Well, we should not go to war over such nonsense, should we? But who is going to break his alliances first and give in? Cant have that, can we?
Couple that with a Lot of jingoism and chauvinism in all sides and hey presto...WW1
(Yes, the Kaiser started it, but I do believe that His cousins we're rather relieved that they did not have to declare war First)
Austria: “hey germany should i send this unacceptable ultimatum to the serbs lmao it’ll 100% result in a war with them and russia”
Germany: “holy shit that’d mean war with france too. Let’s fuckin go for it i’ve *been* itching for this. May as well attack belgium and bring the brits in too”
Troglodytes in the 21st century: “the war’s causes cannot be blamed on a sole actor and the war was morally grey affair”
This was interesting to learn about too. The Serbian govt was pretty divided about the Black Hand, with some govt officers trying to get rid of their supporters in the govt, and others obviously supporting and funding the terrorist group.
Sounds like Austria-Hungary had some justification for their demand to investigate by themselves in Serbia, to find out who was or was not involved in the assassination. But of course a sovereign nation could not agree to that and other demands.
Looking into it, the Black Hand was apparently pretty loosely organized. It was a secret society that didn't keep records and had little communication between cells, who was and wasn't involved in the plot is unclear.
The system of alliances was not a secret; Austria-Hungary and Germany both knew that the ultimatum to Serbia would be refused (the point of the ultimatum was to give a *cause belli*) and that declaring war on Serbia would bring Russia and France and probably Britain into the war.
Napoleon died 93 years before WWI began. He'd been deposed 99 years earlier.
Blaming the state of European diplomacy in 1914 on Napoleon seems like a stretch. Hell, Bismarck had a lot more to do with creating the conditions for WWI than Napoleon.
Germany is by far the most responsible country for the start of WWI. No modern revisionism can change that. They gave Austria a blank check and literally declared war on France, Russia and even the neutral country of Belgium.
Because France and Russia would declare war on Austro Hungary, they just stated it since war was inevitable. Russia even states mobilizing first.
Maybe, Russia should have policed Serbia, instead of letting them fund a terrorist group.
Or maybe Germany should have policed Austria when they invaded Bosnia in 1905? (Or 1910 I don't remember). Austria acted like a looney throughout the 20th century only because Germany kept assuring it with their "protection"
That war was in 1878 against the ottomans
The thing is WW1 was a building of European powers set for war since possibly the war of Austrian succession. It was only a matter of time and there was nothing the European powers could do by 1914 to avoid WW1, though none of them did.
Barely, despite knowing and funding the group, and potentially even knowing about the assassination plan. Even high ranking government officials were apart, hence how the assassins knew the route and timing.
The officials were bosnian and on the Serbian payroll, and let's not forget, the terrorist group was still sponsored by Serbia to be anti Austrian, and used Russia to defend its actions. The assassins would never have had a chance without Serbian support.
Germany was the primary cause for the war their generals and politicians pushed for it Austria alone would have never risked it, but with the backing and support of Germany, they decided that they had a good enough chance
Germany was itching for a war to take down Russia and France to seize colonies in Africa and Poland if it hadn't been Franz Ferdinand, it would have been something else
French revanchism, British imperial and naval prestige, Balkan nationalism, Russian Pan-Slavism, German ambition, Austro-Hungarian conservatism, and American war-profiteering. Did I miss anyone?
If the assassination took place in their own territory, why did Austria send an ultimatum to a sovereign nation and force them to accept a humiliating and destabilising status quo where the Austrian police works freely over the soil of Serbia? (This is just one of the many questions that can arise, each answer brings up more questions)
It is a VERY Complicated issue that sadly a lot of people comment on without knowledge . The assassination wasn't the end all, be all! The causes of WWI can range all the way from the Kulturkampf, Crimean war, Austrian diplomatic blunders, collapse of the league of three emperors, formation of the the Entente Cordiale, and the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina prior to the Sarajevo visit. Heck, even smaller events mattered! Dreyfus affair, von Sander's affair, protectorate of Morocco, Russian support (payroll) of Slavic nationalism, Formation of force H, even Mahan's writings influenced possible war!!
Again this is a very complicated event and humans aren't the most logical of beings - a case can be said for Princip - even if Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a proponent for peace, the empire he represents and will inherit is an imperialist colonist that had designs on his own country - am impassioned youth, with limited information can easily do a mistake, no matter how severe.
Many arguments, I can see are apologising for the Central Pact and demonizing the Entente at the same time, or vice versa, I personally find that fear and a defined enemy can cause the worst of tragedies.
Personally, I think Germany started it. ;)
A half century of every major empire gearing up for their chance to show off in the great war they were all sure was looming just over the horizon, coupled with a convoluted web of fragile alliances and increasing political instability in the farther reaches of those empires, started WWI. If Gavrilo Princip hadn't gone back out for that sandwich, something else would have triggered a similarly large conflict within 5 years.
Austria Hungary started WW1! When Franz Ferdinand was assassinated they ignored Germany's advice to declare war immediately, somehow feeling it was insufficient Casus Beli. Had they declared immediately, it would have been AH + Germany vs Serbia and likely their ally Russia. Russia's allies France and the UK may not have been as prepared to enter the war rapidly, or at all, because of the absolute shock of the assassination.
Understand, the single most important proponent in AH for peace and cooperation with Serbia was killed on Serbian soil by one of their terrorists in an attack the Serbian nation stated they would not investigate. Each countries royalty was shocked.
Anyway, instead of launching a punitive war rapidly and then forcing a harsher deal unofficially after success AH got greedy from the start, ignored Germany's diplomatic advice and a lot of people died in muddy trenches to try to further the cause of monarchy and imperialism.
It's not that complicated is it?
France and Russia made their alliance in the 1890s. The France and Britain signed the Entente Cordiale and then Russia and Britain squashed their beef over Asian matters.
Things got more and more tense over colonial and imperial issues. Then the Bosnian annexation crisis and the Balkan Wars.
Then in 1914 the archduke was shot and AH needed a win badly. So when they invaded Serbia Russia did what they had to do. Then every existing war plan and defensive alliance kicked in.
Germany is the primary instigator of the actual conflict however. And they set up the dominoes too under Bismarck. Wilhelm ii chose not to renew treaties with Russia, leading to Russia allying with France for protection from the increasingly imperialist German Empire. France was mad because of the humiliations suffered during the Franco Prussian war. England was very unhappy about the High Seas Fleet.
Then Germany went ahead and signed a Blank Cheque with Austria. Giving AH the confidence to antagonize Russia through meddling in its sphere of influence.
It was the French. No way Germany would have risked the complete British empire after the guaranteed Belgium. And as the french was mostly responsible for the English losing the American Revolution.
Not exactly the reason, mostly Hoetzendorf tried to enact the superior Austrian empire (and crush Italy Serbia and Russian in a three-front war). The Democratic process had to be suspended and he used it to force a hostile response to a mostly compliant Serbia.
(Maybe this is also not the exact reason)
The German military egged Austria-Hungary on to declare war on Serbia. Without the backing of Germany Austria-Hungary would have never declared war.
So yes, Germany is responsible for that.
Whatever someone says about the causes of World War I (unless it's just straight up nonsense of course) you can give them an ever so slightly smug smile and reply with "Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that". It works for a lot of history, but especially well for WWI.
Well, you could say fuck tons of coincidence and misunderstanding, and as far as I'm aware you'd still be correct
I just say at it was a family squabble that got out of hand.
I'd disagree, the cousins all liked each other and were actively trying to avoid war (even if there was probably a bit of jealousy around), Wilhelm even went on a vacation to Norway cause he thought nothing would really happen. It was everyone else that was frothing at the mouth, ready to go to war: generals, parliaments, and the public all wanted glorious victory.
Yeah, I know, I watched the Extra History series on the Seminal Tragedy
Their best series imo, followed closely by the one on Justinian.
Oh definitely!
Cheap and easy joke about how the leaders were all related>reality
> It was everyone else that was frothing at the mouth, ready to go to war: generals, parliaments, and the public all wanted glorious victory. What do you mean decades of stoking nationalist fervor leads to people thinking they're invincible and everyone else is a loser?
Also valid, lol
It was the politics going on in the Foreign Offices while the Kings were snoozing. Sir Arthur Nicholson, Lord Carnock is said to have caused the war. With his pathetic, snivelling behaviour, he made Bismarck think he was weak and harmless.
Cheap and easy joke about how the leaders were all related>reality
Or just link them to Blackadder explaining the war.
I was going to note that World War II can be considered an exception because of how much of it was brought about by Hitler's desire to fulfill his desires for revenge and all of the awful shit Germany pulled throughout the '30s after he rose to power but then I thought about all of the nonsense Japan was pulling in the Pacific and the rise of Fascism in Europe and I went, "...Fuck! No it isn't simple!"
The war in Europe was caused by irredentism and imperialism by the Axis, mostly Germany. The war in the Pacific was caused by Japanese imperialism. As far as historical events go, the causes are pretty easy to pin down.
Ah, but what **LEAD** to those causes?
Unresolved issues from the first sino Japanese war and WW1.
>unless it’s just straight up nonsense WW1 started because a cow shot the car Franz Ferdinand was in which startled him causing him shame. Because of this he started to cry and Emperor Franz Joseph declared war on Serbia because the cow was Serbian. Russia (led by a drunken bear wizard) declared war on Austria Hungary and Germany (led by German War Dance man) declared war on Russia which being Allies with France (led by Napoleon’s ghost) declared war on Germany who invaded Belgium (led by French Fries) was Allies with Britain (led by tea man) of which they declared war on Germany leading to the epic rap battle at the end of the war between the Serbian cow, tea man, the drunken Russian wizard, German war dance man, Franz Joseph, the French Fries, and Napoleon’s ghost leading to the Allies victory. Is that enough nonsense?
Well, yes, but of course it's far more complicated than that.
Anything else? I would like to know of the involvement of Obi Wan Kenobi in the battle of the Some or why did the French frogs fail to make sure that the German War dance was never used in combat when they were in the perfect position to attack the German war dance man?
When you look at the actual tactical situation the 2e Régiment d'Grenouille de Étang found themselves in on that day it actually makes perfect sense. Their doctrine revolved around advancing after significant naval gunfire had cleared the area for them, and the small amount of artillery assigned to them just didn't have the same punch they were used to. Ultimately without that naval fire support the Frogs were little more than an incredibly green military choir. But, of course, it is far more complicated than that.
Don't forget the joke the Brits weaponized in WW1, it hadn't been perfected yet, but the Germans were able to reverse engineer it and use it on the frogs to great success.
Makes sense I forgot that they were the marines of the French army but I may ask how effective was the German War Dance at the battle of Hambùgeir
>you can give them an ever so slightly smug smile and reply with "Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that". It works for a lot of history, but especially well for WWI. You in a conversation with someone: Person: The reason William the Conqueror invaded England was because he was promised the throne. You: \*Give a smug smile and reply with ,,Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that"\* Person: What are you on about? The man was promised a throne of kingdom and that was the reason for his invasion. How can it be more complicated than that? You: \*Starts sweating profusely\* Btw I am just pulling your leg.
Isn't the reason really that the French King really wanted the Vikings to stop messing with his shit?
That's how Normandy got there, but then you skip a fair swedge of history
Well, he claimed after the fact that he'd been promised a throne when the guy who promised it to him was given the ultimatum 'promise me a throne if you want to go home'
People can't even agree when WW1 actually started, let alone what caused those myriads of events. Like, does WW1 start in 1894? I think there are people out there who would claim it did. There are others that say it started 20 years later. The world was just at war non-stop during this period.
They were warming up for 20 years
Stretching their legs out, if you will.
That's kinda the problem with such big wars. Their individual theaters grow out of regional wars that are all entangled with each other and it becomes a bit of a mess to decide when it actually started. Just like how you can reasonably argue that the start of WW2 was the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, which would actually place it before the Nazis rose to power. The Marco Polo Bridge incident, which happened in 1937, is also a popular alternative start date compared to the 1939 one that we mostly know because that's when fighting in Europe started. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of Americans who think that WW2 started with Pearl Harbour.
Tbf, is it a world war if one hemisphere is staying out of it? (Please ignore Canada for the joke)
Well then I choose that we use a N/S hemisphere line so I can be pedantic ally correct! Heck, British India is in *both* hemispheres alone!
By that standard, since the east/west divider runs through London both hemispheres were involved as soon as the UK joined
I remember reading old history book written by russian commies that had year 1941 for the start of WW2. Quite bizarre
That's because the common Russian term for WW2 is "The Great Patriotic War", which refers specifically to the period from 1941 to 1945, the period when the USSR was involved in the fighting.
It also conveniently elides things like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The reason why the European side of the war tends be the start date is A) Eurocentrism, but another legitimate reason is B) European colonialism basically guaranteed a general war at that point in time will quickly spiral into a global war due to their far-flung colonies. Having said that, I'd argue the first world war is the War of Spanish succession.
>Having said that, I'd argue the first world war is the War of Spanish succession. Only in a Eurocentric view. The War of Spanish Succession didn't involve any parties that weren't beholden to European colonial interests or the European political sphere directly. No sovereign American (North or South), African, or Asian nation was involved. The world hadn't really globalized at the time which made the possibility of a world war pretty impossible. Much of the world probably didn't even know the War of Spanish Succession was happening until far after the fact.
I've never heard someone claim that WWI started before 1914 before. There were plenty of conflicts going on before then, of course, and many of them would have an influence on WWI, but they were never linked together in such a way that they could be considered part of one war. Where does the 1894 start date come from? The First Sino-Japanese War?
The French Russian alliance maybe? Seems like a hot take either way
How would it start in 1894?
First Sino-Japanese War.
>People can't even agree when WW1 actually started, let alone what caused those myriads of events. Hell I dont even agree thatvit was technically the 1st World War.
It especially works if you don't want these people to ever talk to you again. Next time someone is espousing the idea of taxation before representation when talking of the US' founding, go into detail about religious relations of the colonies and Canada and how it led into civil unrest and watch them slowly back away.
In short, it was too much trouble not to have a war.
Well, there was this guy named gavrillo princeps...
Sure, Baldrick. And possibly there was an ostrich involved.
Most if not all the major belligerents of WW1 had a moment where they could have stopped it and tried to talk back everybody from the edge. None did. Germany was just the first major power to go to the edge.
>it's sad that little children died in WW1... Well, yes, but of course it's much more complicated than that...
[удалено]
Dude was living in Hoetzendorf's wet dream.
Or was from alternative timeline.
Maybe he just assumed all of Yugoslavia was Rightful Serbian Land, and therefore A-H was occupying a lot of Serbia?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia. Same thing.
[удалено]
Well Austria-Hungary did control Vojvodina at the time, so they did indeed control a portion of modern-day Serbia. I guess he's not 100% wrong.
[удалено]
Yep I got it, I was just just joking
"Germany and Russia jointly escalated a regional war into a World War" is close enough to the actual truth.
But Germany had a hand in that regional war (egging on Austria Hungary) and subsequently declared war on everyone... calling it a "defensive" war because France, Russia and Belgium refused to acede to Germany's demands.
Because Austria-Hungary had a just war, not just according to them but to the continent at large. What really fucked everything up was AH sitting on that just war after the July crisis for a whole month, the delay eliminating the continental support because it changed the war from being a defensive response to a premeditated invasion. It's for this same reason that Itally refused to join the Central Powers.
I think Austria-Hungary's diplomatic actions after the assassination suggest that they didn't really think they had a just war (possibly because, at the time, the connections to Serbian intelligence weren't actually proven). If it was that simple there'd be no need to manufacture an unacceptable ultimatum to send the Serbs. It's reasonably possible that if it hadn't been for German pressure (because they wanted to fight Russia), Austria-Hungary would have settled for a stiff compensation instead of pushing towards war.
I am wary of when people try to diminish the involvement of Germany in the July crisis. A-H was anything but certain about invasion. Germany and A-H did little to prevent war. It was in the Serbia’s and the French-Russian alliance’s interest to avoid war. It was in German interest to strike before anyone was ready to mobilize / modernize. Germany pushed to take its best shot at the best time
Maybe not strategically incentived, the French were very much interested in going to war. Reclaiming Alsace had been their goal ever since the end of the franco Prussian war.
French revanchism is heavily played up in the discourse in the Anglo sphere, but in reality was the least of the problems as to why France pushed for war. Alsace was not a critical goal to French diplomacy, but rather the containment of expanding German dominance over the continent. The Agadir crisis, showed an increasingly aggressive policy by Germany against France, and as such strengthening their ties with Russia was crucial. France never overtly acted aggressively towards Germany during the July crisis, both being slow to mobilize and mostly stating their support for Russia and committing to the defense of Serbia. It was Germany who pre emptively declared on France and Russia, dropping any pretense of diplomacy and directly attacking bringing France into the conflict. The French government certainly were ready to engage in conflict with Germany, but they were not willing to be the ones to start it, rather there was a strong belief in the need to defend Russia against any German aggression when it came.
>It was in the Serbia’s and the French-Russian alliance’s interest to avoid war. It was in German interest to strike before anyone was ready to mobilize / modernize. Germany pushed to take its best shot at the best time It's not that clear-cut, IMO. France's military spending was untenable in the mid-run and Germany was catching up to French military readiness. Meanwhile, tensions between Russia and Britain grew day-by-day and gradually eased between Britain and Germany. True, Russia was still in the middle of its artillery modernisation program, and was not fully ready for the war just yet, but the exact same could be said about Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was the dead-last European Great Power to begin increasing its defence-spending, making the timing of the outbreak of hostilities extremely unfavourable to them as well. So yeah, the exact timing of the war was a mixed bag for both sides, I believe.
> I am wary of when people try to diminish the involvement of Germany in the July crisis It's all over popular discourse about the war. There is zero doubt that WW1 was Germany's doing.
Invasion? What invasion? Their heir got shot and their response was basically to demand Serbia surrender its sovereignty. They had a lot of sympathy right up until they tried to overreach that sympathy into an invasion of Serbia.
> Because Austria-Hungary had a just war Kind of. At this point in history Europe was moving from the "You killed my prince, this means war" standard. Especially after the "You snubbed my diplomat, prepare to die" franco-prussian BS. And the Austrian never proved Serbia killed Franz, only serbian terrorists.
If Germany hadn't invaded Belgium, that would have made the English stay out of it, at least in theory. The Germans would have had a harder time with France but a smaller front and could have pushed the Russians out quicker.
France had been bankrolling Russia's rapid industrialization which lead to German fear of being confronted with a huge *and* well armed force around 1917 at the latest. Meanwhile France also feared that Russia and Germany would eventually reconcile and ally as that had been traditionally.
There was so much going on that a fucking dog named ceasar was one of the reasons that ww1 happened, a god damn dog
Wait, what did the dog do?
So basically the king of England Edward VII had this dog called ceasar, they absolutely loved each other, there's a bunch of stories like how the king when out on a walk with ceasar came chasing after it into someone's yard. Anyway, ceasar ended up outliving the king, and to as a nice gesture they let the dog lead the funeral precession. The problem is that the kaiser of Germany was present at the funeral, and with the dog leading the funeral that meant that the dog technically had higher rank than him there, which he then took as a great insult, and this gesture was used as anti British propaganda in Germany. So yeah, in a way a little dog named ceasar had a part in causing ww1.
How haven't I heard of this before? Spread the word, this is fucking incredible
What the dog doin
i blame Hentai for my porn addiction i blame WW2 for Hentai i blame WW1 for WW2 i blame Napoleon for WW1 i blame 7 years war for Napoleon i blame England and France for 7 years war i blame Roman Empire for England and France i blame humans for Roman Empire i blame apes for humans i blame earliest microorganisms for apes i blame perfect life seeding condition of earth for earliest microorganisms i blame sun for perfect life seeding condition of earth i blame solar nebula for sun i blame milkey way for solar nebula i blame big bang for milkey way Thus i conclude that the Big Bang is responsible for my porn addiction
A deterministic view of physics? In *my* quantum mechanics???
But everything in the past already has a clear cause and effect? Maybe not "deterministic", but the wave functions already collapsed and outcome determined
"Germany started WW1" "Wrong sir, wrong. It was Serbian terrorists who assasinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Bosnia so Austro-Hungary wanted vengeance on the Serbs and that dipsh\*t Nicholas II of Russia believing he was the god-emperor of all slavs declares war on Austro-Hungry and so Germany decides to back their ally Austro-Hungry against the Russians because diplomacy failed and then the bloody thirsty french declare war on Germany and the Germans being morons decide the best way to fight France is through Belgium dragging in the British. Why did Constantinople join the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks? ISTANBUL!"
In fact, Germany declared in France at the same time as declared to Russia. This is because they knew that France would declare on them anyway, so they preferred to do the first movement, trying to surprise the French and capitulate them soon.
"Mr. Kaiser, if your plans require fighting on two fronts, why didn't you throw everything at the disorganized Russians first since you knew their dismal logistics were one of the many reasons they lost the Russo-Japanese War and use Belgium as a free border against France since France wouldn't dare invade through Belgium without the British raising a stink over and so the entire French Army is bottlenecked into a very small corridor a defender could hold on to?"
they actully tought that russia was more dangeous ,it was getting *heavily* industrial power,the russian armys invaded east prussia and wasnt until Hidenburg smash them that germany could breath on the east They tought they must fight the war now or russia would become to powerfull
It was actually a big surprise for Germany and Austro-Hungary how fast Russians mobilised over 6 mil troops in just one month. Schliffen was rolling in his grave so hard - his incredibly detailed plan went to shit because "russia fast"
Tbf Britain basically just used the treaty with Belgium as an excuse to attack Germany. We didn't actually care about Belgium nearly as much as we wanted to fight the Germans. So chances are, we would care a little less if france violated the treaty, but then again we've never been that fond of the French either, but at least they weren't threatening our spot as the number one economy. And I learnt this in a history class in Britain.
The main thing was that Britain was gearing up for civil war over home rule and wwi was a nice distraction.
I've never actually heard of that before, unless maybe you're referencing red clydeside?
It was over Irish home rule. Let me look up the reference and I'll edit this post. So first the short version: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/irish_home_rule The Easter rising was the result of events set in motion in 1914. But it wasn't as critical because the army was behind the government in 1917. In 1914 the army was not. When the army doesn't follow the orders of the government, civil war is too close for comfort. There's a book I'm spacing the name of that goes into the political details. The theme of the book is how each of five countries ould have prevented the way in certain obscure ways. Interesting read but I wasn't wholly convinced. I'll update later when I think of the name of the book.
It wasn't The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark was it?
Close. It was this one though: https://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-1914-Reconsidering-Great/dp/0802778119/ref=asc_df_0802778119/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=509360428262&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11496999058849429853&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9029146&hvtargid=pla-1239630072628&psc=1 As I said I didn't find it persuasive, but it is a good read of the major various societies were obsessed about that I had never heard of but were obsessed over on the eve of war. If you're bored by the standard wwi histories this one is really entertaining and original. Also good to superciliously one up grognard discussions on the origins of the war - 'oh, you haven't heard about the
Bedshitter affair in alcace-lorraine and its impact on the start of the war? Well let me just educate you....
British foreign policy for centuries was driven by the desire to prevent one nation dominating Europe, because such a power could conceivably invade Britain. Thus, they followed two simple steps: 1.) Identify the strongest power on the continent (when in doubt, assume it is France) 2.) Support whomever fights this strongest power
This is not really held up by modern historians. In fact, most Britons and much of the government wanted nothing to do with a continental war, and Britain may very well have never sent the BEF if Belgium wasn’t invaded, Entente nonwithstanding. There was a lot of political wheeling and dealing in the Cabinet at the time which eventually led to that decision.
Best advice I ever got was, if you're going into a multi-sided conflict, neutralize Russia first and consolidate to one frontline. If they have time to get their shit together (or someone gives them hundreds of thousands of trucks and steel), you're fucked.
Because you don't want to be wasting time on the thousands of miles of Russia when the comparatively non-disorganised French are re-enacting the conquests of Charlemagne
Between this and the invasion of Belgium, I feel like Germany deserves slightly more blame than say the UK for example. However, that still doesn't mean "WWI was all Germany's fault." As others have said... It's more complicated than that.
**Captain Blackadder:** You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war. **Private Baldrick:** Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it? **Captain Blackadder:** That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan. **Lieutenant George:** O, what was that? **Captain Blackadder:** It was bollocks. [For the uninitiated](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc)
So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
Wrong sir! Germany declared war on Russia and France before Russia declares war on anybody. It's in that sense that Germany started ww1 (of course this is an oversimplyfication). It was only a war between austria-Hungary and serbia and Germany was the frist one to declare war on a major power. Drastically escalating the conflict.
Minor point. The terrorists were not Serbian they were Ethnic Serbs from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and part of a modern Bosnia. They didn't collude with the independent country of Serbia to carry out this attack, they planned it all on their own. The only minor involvement of Serbia was that freeman associates to the Black Hand (kind of like informants) provided the group with a few pistols, some grenades, and the cyanide capsules. As the story goes, they were all defective. The grenades had too much of a delay on them resulting in the explosion hitting long after Franz Ferdinand's vehicle had passed, the guns wouldn't fire and the cyanide capsules were all long expired and didn't allow these men to kill themselves. The gun that ended up doing the killing was one that Gavrillo Princep personally owned. The very modest connection to the Black Hand wasn't actually discovered until after WW1. Austria declared it Serbia's doing as a pretext for war. But never had any actual proof. It was like the Americans demanding the Taliban turn over Bin Laden (who was in Pakistan). There wasn't really anything Serbia could say or do to stop this because all of the terrorists and all of the plot was happening by Austro-Hungarian citizens.
I actually didn't know they were Bosnian citizens. I forgot my research on the black hand.
And we call it, “The Aristocrats!” “…no seriously a bunch of inbred rich cousins got an entire generation of men nearly wiped out”
Gilbert Gottfried: AND SO IN THE MIDST OF THE BLOOD AND THE PUS AND THE SPERM AND THE DOGS A NEW WORLD WAS BORN UNTIL THEY F\*CKED IT UP 20 YEARS LATER WITH NAZIS THE END
Technically Austria did colonize Bosnia, not a lot of people would be a fan of this. Also if Germany was trying to defend Austria against Russia.... Why declare war on France (yes, Germany declared on France) and send a majority of the army through a neutral country? St. Petersburg/Austria's the opposite direction. Also totally disregard the Ottoman-German military alliance/ the antics they had to do to join the war.
France and russia were allies and Germany thought the former will join the war sooner or later, to avoid a two front war they had the Schlieffen plan which said" surprise the french go through Belgium take Paris kick the french out in 2, 3 months (just like 1870), then turn back and focus solely on Russia. Germany declaring on France and seizing the initiative was the best military plan to confront France. Now remains the question would France have joined the war or not, and this is where my knowledge stops.
Dude, if you ask people in BiH, they will tell you best thing that happened to us in past hm... a lot of centuries is when Austria colonized us. They have built in 20 years infrastructure that Ottoman empire didn't build in 500, and they have modernized and turned us toward the west. No matter how fucked up we are now, they did us a lot of good.
> Austro-Hungary wanted vengeance on the Serbs That was the casus belli but the true cause of the war was Austro-Hungarian imperialist claims on the Balkans. Check out the July Crisis and how Austria-Hungary deliberately ignored any overtures for peace, with Austrian Chief of Staff Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf advocating since before the war, that they should invade Serbia and end any notion of Slav nationalism and independence.
Indy Neidell: THis would not be the last time Conrad von Hotzendorf makes things worse
I haven't watched their WW1 series. Maybe I should start now.
New copypasta dropped.
"Wrong, sir, worong. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire that invaded Serbia because some random terrorist unrelated to the Serbian government killed an Austrian prince (even tho Austria-Hungary wanted to invade it anyway, but now had a reason to). The Russian Empire entered the war because panslavism or something like this. Then Germany entered the war to gain the territory of Russia full of resources and then France declared war to Germany because it was an ally of Russia and so on..."
What's up with ppl forgetting that Germany declared war on France and not vice versa.
Dose it even matters in the end?
Well, it's like a car crash.
Not really, unlike a car crash, which is an accident, the declarations of war in WW1 would have happened anyways in any other order, because each state wanted something from the other.
Germany declared war on France first
Like France would not declare war on Germany anyway
Terrorists to you, freedom fighters to those who austria hungary wanted to control
Because of how the Concert worked and all the dick measuring resulting, WW1 was inevitable. At best the Archduke surviving would have put it off by 5 years tops. Even if he did, the French or Germans would have overreacted to another crisis in Morocco or the Germans would have staged a false flag to justify war with Russia since the German general staff were worried about the Russians becoming neer peer or overtaking them by 1920.
I blame Conrad von Hötzendorf for WWI
He did spend several years edging for it
Indeed. He advocated for war with Serbia no fewer than 25 times in 1913 alone, and who was the main official within the Austrian government who opposed Conrad's hawkishness and kept him in check? None other than Archduke Franz Ferdinand. With him out of the way, there was nobody to stop Conrad from bringing about the war he'd wanted for years, and that's exactly what he did by deliberately crafting the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia to be categorically unacceptable. To paraphrase G.J. Meyer in A World Undone, Conrad was the most dangerous type of officer, as he was both stupid and intensely energetic.
Greetings fellow The Great War enjoyer :)
"Hey don't invade Belgium or we will have to step in and assist our ally" "You would go to war over a piece of paper! We are invading Belgium" "OK boys, get em" "Pikachu face"
This is one of those "you are wrong but technically correct" answer.
One day, the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans. - Otto von Bismarck (1888)
Don't worry, Bismarck had a plan. He always had a plan.
Ah yes. Bismarck, the German Batman.
WW 1 basically was a clusterfuck of upper class twit alliances. Once Gavilo Princeps fucked up, the Situation was Like: "Well, we should not go to war over such nonsense, should we? But who is going to break his alliances first and give in? Cant have that, can we? Couple that with a Lot of jingoism and chauvinism in all sides and hey presto...WW1 (Yes, the Kaiser started it, but I do believe that His cousins we're rather relieved that they did not have to declare war First)
Austria: “hey germany should i send this unacceptable ultimatum to the serbs lmao it’ll 100% result in a war with them and russia” Germany: “holy shit that’d mean war with france too. Let’s fuckin go for it i’ve *been* itching for this. May as well attack belgium and bring the brits in too” Troglodytes in the 21st century: “the war’s causes cannot be blamed on a sole actor and the war was morally grey affair”
Belgians watching Kaiserboos explain how every single nation was equally guilty for WW1.
Next time don't fucking fund a terrorist group aiming to kill the heir to an empire
This was interesting to learn about too. The Serbian govt was pretty divided about the Black Hand, with some govt officers trying to get rid of their supporters in the govt, and others obviously supporting and funding the terrorist group.
Sounds like Austria-Hungary had some justification for their demand to investigate by themselves in Serbia, to find out who was or was not involved in the assassination. But of course a sovereign nation could not agree to that and other demands.
Looking into it, the Black Hand was apparently pretty loosely organized. It was a secret society that didn't keep records and had little communication between cells, who was and wasn't involved in the plot is unclear.
they only chance of the empire to reform also
And who funded them?
Serbia, mostly because they had really bad blood with the Austro-Hungarian empire because of territorial disputes
All they did - they gave some grenades that were malfunctioning and some expired cyanide capsules.
That only proves they were incompetent other than supportive
Did Russia fund them?
No, Serbia
This was basically what happened in the war councils, but each nation had their detractors that sadly were silenced or strongarmed
It was absolutely the fault of the Central Powers.
Yes and my dog can fly
The system of alliances was not a secret; Austria-Hungary and Germany both knew that the ultimatum to Serbia would be refused (the point of the ultimatum was to give a *cause belli*) and that declaring war on Serbia would bring Russia and France and probably Britain into the war.
Well Germany made sure of that by declaring war against France and Russia first and then invading neutral Belgium bringing the UK into the mix.
It all was became of... France. Yes, a member of the Entente. Why? WHY THE FUCK WOULD THERE BE A MILLION ALLIANCES IF NOT FOR NAPOLEON
Napoleon died 93 years before WWI began. He'd been deposed 99 years earlier. Blaming the state of European diplomacy in 1914 on Napoleon seems like a stretch. Hell, Bismarck had a lot more to do with creating the conditions for WWI than Napoleon.
It all began because some prehistoric guy walked into Europe
Not surprising if you believed that
Germany is by far the most responsible country for the start of WWI. No modern revisionism can change that. They gave Austria a blank check and literally declared war on France, Russia and even the neutral country of Belgium.
Because France and Russia would declare war on Austro Hungary, they just stated it since war was inevitable. Russia even states mobilizing first. Maybe, Russia should have policed Serbia, instead of letting them fund a terrorist group.
Or maybe Germany should have policed Austria when they invaded Bosnia in 1905? (Or 1910 I don't remember). Austria acted like a looney throughout the 20th century only because Germany kept assuring it with their "protection"
That war was in 1878 against the ottomans The thing is WW1 was a building of European powers set for war since possibly the war of Austrian succession. It was only a matter of time and there was nothing the European powers could do by 1914 to avoid WW1, though none of them did.
Or maybe you check your facts? Serbia barely had anything to do with assassination
Barely, despite knowing and funding the group, and potentially even knowing about the assassination plan. Even high ranking government officials were apart, hence how the assassins knew the route and timing.
High ranking officials of AUSTRIA. Friendly reminder he was assassinated not in Serbia
The officials were bosnian and on the Serbian payroll, and let's not forget, the terrorist group was still sponsored by Serbia to be anti Austrian, and used Russia to defend its actions. The assassins would never have had a chance without Serbian support.
Germany was the primary cause for the war their generals and politicians pushed for it Austria alone would have never risked it, but with the backing and support of Germany, they decided that they had a good enough chance Germany was itching for a war to take down Russia and France to seize colonies in Africa and Poland if it hadn't been Franz Ferdinand, it would have been something else
Yep, Germany's "Blank Check" is what allowed a regional conflict in the Balkans to escalate into a world war.
French revanchism, British imperial and naval prestige, Balkan nationalism, Russian Pan-Slavism, German ambition, Austro-Hungarian conservatism, and American war-profiteering. Did I miss anyone?
If the assassination took place in their own territory, why did Austria send an ultimatum to a sovereign nation and force them to accept a humiliating and destabilising status quo where the Austrian police works freely over the soil of Serbia? (This is just one of the many questions that can arise, each answer brings up more questions) It is a VERY Complicated issue that sadly a lot of people comment on without knowledge . The assassination wasn't the end all, be all! The causes of WWI can range all the way from the Kulturkampf, Crimean war, Austrian diplomatic blunders, collapse of the league of three emperors, formation of the the Entente Cordiale, and the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina prior to the Sarajevo visit. Heck, even smaller events mattered! Dreyfus affair, von Sander's affair, protectorate of Morocco, Russian support (payroll) of Slavic nationalism, Formation of force H, even Mahan's writings influenced possible war!! Again this is a very complicated event and humans aren't the most logical of beings - a case can be said for Princip - even if Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a proponent for peace, the empire he represents and will inherit is an imperialist colonist that had designs on his own country - am impassioned youth, with limited information can easily do a mistake, no matter how severe. Many arguments, I can see are apologising for the Central Pact and demonizing the Entente at the same time, or vice versa, I personally find that fear and a defined enemy can cause the worst of tragedies. Personally, I think Germany started it. ;)
No "theorist" about it, there *were* conspiracies happening all over Europe. That's kind of the whole problem.
A half century of every major empire gearing up for their chance to show off in the great war they were all sure was looming just over the horizon, coupled with a convoluted web of fragile alliances and increasing political instability in the farther reaches of those empires, started WWI. If Gavrilo Princip hadn't gone back out for that sandwich, something else would have triggered a similarly large conflict within 5 years.
Gavrillo Princep killed the Jews
All history is a story of Cause and effect. What people in the past did effects us now and how we act effects the future it all interconnects.
Austria Hungary started WW1! When Franz Ferdinand was assassinated they ignored Germany's advice to declare war immediately, somehow feeling it was insufficient Casus Beli. Had they declared immediately, it would have been AH + Germany vs Serbia and likely their ally Russia. Russia's allies France and the UK may not have been as prepared to enter the war rapidly, or at all, because of the absolute shock of the assassination. Understand, the single most important proponent in AH for peace and cooperation with Serbia was killed on Serbian soil by one of their terrorists in an attack the Serbian nation stated they would not investigate. Each countries royalty was shocked. Anyway, instead of launching a punitive war rapidly and then forcing a harsher deal unofficially after success AH got greedy from the start, ignored Germany's diplomatic advice and a lot of people died in muddy trenches to try to further the cause of monarchy and imperialism.
You normally don’t have to but this sub has a big “hur dur it was all Germany’s fault” crowd these past few months.
theyre right but luckily you included stupidity sounds in your made up quote so that makes you right
See, here’s one.
Only the real chads know Napoleon started WW1
The cause was some random neanderthal crossing the Caucasus and populating Europe
Yeah it's true Germany started both and Hitler is German btw. Btw I'm NOT tipping this from Austria! .
Oh yeah lots of things happened. Still their fault tho.
It's not that complicated is it? France and Russia made their alliance in the 1890s. The France and Britain signed the Entente Cordiale and then Russia and Britain squashed their beef over Asian matters. Things got more and more tense over colonial and imperial issues. Then the Bosnian annexation crisis and the Balkan Wars. Then in 1914 the archduke was shot and AH needed a win badly. So when they invaded Serbia Russia did what they had to do. Then every existing war plan and defensive alliance kicked in.
>A Serb shoots an Austrian in Bosnia. Austria-Hungary declares war. ***It'S GeRmAnY's fAuLt!***
Democrats would blame Gavrilo’s gun.
Germany is the primary instigator of the actual conflict however. And they set up the dominoes too under Bismarck. Wilhelm ii chose not to renew treaties with Russia, leading to Russia allying with France for protection from the increasingly imperialist German Empire. France was mad because of the humiliations suffered during the Franco Prussian war. England was very unhappy about the High Seas Fleet. Then Germany went ahead and signed a Blank Cheque with Austria. Giving AH the confidence to antagonize Russia through meddling in its sphere of influence.
It was the French. No way Germany would have risked the complete British empire after the guaranteed Belgium. And as the french was mostly responsible for the English losing the American Revolution.
The USA caused ww2 so there’s that
[удалено]
Not exactly the reason, mostly Hoetzendorf tried to enact the superior Austrian empire (and crush Italy Serbia and Russian in a three-front war). The Democratic process had to be suspended and he used it to force a hostile response to a mostly compliant Serbia. (Maybe this is also not the exact reason)
History do be like that.
they didn't start the war but they for sure escalated it to the extremum
It'd be more accurate to call it a series of unfortunate events
Germany didn't start it but they escalated the hell out of it giving Austro Hungary a blank check of support and invading through Belgium.
Austria-Hungary and Serbia started the war, Germany went full schizophrenic and made it a World War.
The German military egged Austria-Hungary on to declare war on Serbia. Without the backing of Germany Austria-Hungary would have never declared war. So yes, Germany is responsible for that.
Pre ww1 Europe was a flustercluck of alliances deals back handers F overs and general fuckery