10 interpretations of who started WW1

[Valmy]

Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

I guess the reason I ask if if had proceeded apace with just Serbia accepting Austrian conditions, seems like Serbian government would have taken a lot of heat and potentially ended up with even more radical movements.

Yes it would have been humiliating and destabilizing.  Intervention by the Great Powers may have been necessary.  But I do not think any of that would have led to a general European War barring a full fledged Austro-Hungarian invasion.

[alfred russel]

My impression is that they were not able to contain the conflict because Germany in particular did not wish the conflict to be contained, but - contrary to its expectations - lacked the military power to reach the sort of swift decision in its favour that it obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German war aim appeared to be to crush France, swiftly turn around and crush Russia, while Austria gobbled up Serbia. All this to take place while the UK hemmed and hawed - leaving Germany undisputed master in Europe, with the UK having (basically) to like it or lump it. The problem was that this plan did not work.

I think many in leadership in Germany knew that they were playing with a poor hand. They didn't expect to be able to survive in a two front war. Their hope was to swiftly crush France while Russia mobilized (which was expected to take a long time), and then move their armies east to fight the Russians. The UK would not be a factor with the French out of the war quickly.

Once the Russians began to mobilize to defend Serbia, the Germans had no chance but to attack. If Russia had a chance to mobilize before any war started, then based on pre war thinking the plan leaving a skeleton force in the east while marching on Paris would not work.

The point being that once the Germans gave Austro-Hungary the go ahead with the ultimatum to Serbia, they really were committed (excluding the chance of Russia completely folding on Serbia). I'm not sure everyone in German leadership (such as the Kaiser) understood that at the time, though some did.

[Sheilbh]

Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

That's sort of something Christopher Clark mentions in the Sleepwalkers (which I've not started so can't back up).

[garbon]

Do you think that would have prevented it though or just cause a delay? Didn't something need to change in Serbia to stop it from being a hot potato in the Balkans?

That's sort of something Christopher Clark mentions in the Sleepwalkers (which I've not started so can't back up).

I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

What was forcing the pace in German thinking was that Russia was re-arming with modern weapons (after its military humiliations, particularly by Japan). Germany allegedly estimated that by 1916 Russia would be too strong for its plan of crushing both France and Russia to work. Thus, if it was to make its bid for supremacy, it was basically now or never.

Assuming this perception remained true, if the instant crisis had passed, it is unlikely a future one would have ignited a general war - with Russia stronger (at least in the short term - who knows what revolutions may have happened without the war), Germany would not have backed Austria with the "blank cheque", and Austria would have dealt more warily with Serbia. Serbian-Austrian relations would have remained a purely local affair.

This isn't to say there would be no conflict. Austria was tottering for a fall from internal problems. The break-up of that empire would have caused huge issues no matter what. But it need not have taken the form of a universal European war.

That would be an awesome alt-hist wargame.

[Sheilbh]

I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind.

Take it it's good then?

It reminds me of my friend in Bosnia who was saying how genuinely clueless the Bosnian government are about how to commemorate 1914. They have to because it's probably the most famous thing that happened in Sarajevo (maybe the siege) and certainly the most globally important. But the war actually had barely any impact in Bosnia so it didn't really matter to them and, of course, the Black Hand were Serb nationalists who basically saw Bosnia as part of Serbia. So it's really difficult to work out quite what to do.

[Malthus]

My impression is that they were not able to contain the conflict because Germany in particular did not wish the conflict to be contained, but - contrary to its expectations - lacked the military power to reach the sort of swift decision in its favour that it obtained in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German war aim appeared to be to crush France, swiftly turn around and crush Russia, while Austria gobbled up Serbia. All this to take place while the UK hemmed and hawed - leaving Germany undisputed master in Europe, with the UK having (basically) to like it or lump it. The problem was that this plan did not work.

I think many in leadership in Germany knew that they were playing with a poor hand. They didn't expect to be able to survive in a two front war. Their hope was to swiftly crush France while Russia mobilized (which was expected to take a long time), and then move their armies east to fight the Russians. The UK would not be a factor with the French out of the war quickly.

Once the Russians began to mobilize to defend Serbia, the Germans had no chance but to attack. If Russia had a chance to mobilize before any war started, then based on pre war thinking the plan leaving a skeleton force in the east while marching on Paris would not work.

The point being that once the Germans gave Austro-Hungary the go ahead with the ultimatum to Serbia, they really were committed (excluding the chance of Russia completely folding on Serbia). I'm not sure everyone in German leadership (such as the Kaiser) understood that at the time, though some did.

The choice is really between German stupidity and German malice/greed (all referring to the leaders/decision makers, of course). Either the Germans did not know that they were committed, or they did but thought the game was worth the risk.

In any event, there is very little any of the other powers could do to prevent war, without basically capitulating to unacceptable outcomes. Russia could have stood by and let Serbia be crushed I suppose, but there was nothing France or the UK could reasonably have done to stop the war.

In contrast, Austria could have stopped the war by being more reasonable with Serbia, and Germany could have stopped the war by not backing Austria up with its aggressions. 

[garbon]

Serbia is still a hot potato, to this day.

I guess the reason I ask if if had proceeded apace with just Serbia accepting Austrian conditions, seems like Serbian government would have taken a lot of heat and potentially ended up with even more radical movements.

Yes it would have been humiliating and destabilizing.  Intervention by the Great Powers may have been necessary.  But I do not think any of that would have led to a general European War barring a full fledged Austro-Hungarian invasion.

What do you think would have changed in the interim? I can really only think of a few things if A-H was still around and eventually had to intervene in Serbia.

*Germany no longer wanted a war to establish primacy in Europe (I guess because window had closed and they now were notably weaker and accepted that?)
*Russia either cared not for Balkans and/or fell into revolution and was unable to heighten an A-H/Serb conflict.

[The Brain]

WW1 is a toughie. Is the fault with the terrorist state or with the major power that backs up the terrorist state? But does it really matter?

[garbon]

I've actually been reading it (apparently near 70% through on Kindle) which is why it sprung to mind.

Take it it's good then?

Yeah I'd recommend. Definitely an interesting look - though I'd say nearly everyone comes off looking scummy.

[The Minsky Moment]

WW1 is a toughie. Is the fault with the terrorist state or with the major power that backs up the terrorist state? But does it really matter?

indeed we can blame both Austria and Germany.

[Kleves]

Serbia had been fomenting terrorism in Austria-Hungary for decades, and the highest levels of the Serbian military intelligence had just conspired to murder the Austrian heir. Even if that's not considered a de facto declaration of war, why would Austria be willing to trust the Serbian government's investigation into the assassination? The Serbian government had just acquiesced in/conspired to the murder. Why should Russia's support for this terrorist state be thought inevitable and/or unworthy of reproach? The Tsar's government decided to go to war to save a terrorist state (a scenario France had beforehand specifically agreed would trigger the alliance); it was this action and Russian mobilization that directly caused the world war.

[Drakken]

And I'm still laughing from when Sheilbh told me that no one took the "German guilt" myth seriously anymore. 

[Sheilbh]

And I'm still laughing from when Sheilbh told me that no one took the "German guilt" myth seriously anymore. 

Refresh my memory.

I mean I think Germany's most responsible

[alfred russel]

The choice is really between German stupidity and German malice/greed (all referring to the leaders/decision makers, of course). Either the Germans did not know that they were committed, or they did but thought the game was worth the risk.

I agree with the second sentence, but to quibble with the first, I don't know if malice/greed are the right adjectives. Germany may have launched massive attacks on other powers and small neutral countries, but I think it did so for primarily defensive reasons. It had little to gain and much to lose. My impression of the more hawkish decision makers was an attitude of "war is going to come eventually, and this is our best chance of prevailing." I don't know what adjectives to replace malice/greed with though.