10 interpretations of who started WW1

[Admiral Yi]

The case against Russia is that they were the first to start the mobilization juggernaut rolling.

[garbon]

The belief by von Hötzendorf that a war would re-energize Austria-Hungary and that is what it needed was pretty insane,

Freud did.

[garbon]

Cries.

It does fit his mythos.

[crazy canuck]

The case against Russia is that they were the first to start the mobilization juggernaut rolling.

And if Germany had forced A-H to back down rather than be forced into a fight with the Russians the Russian mobilization would have been remembered as the act which prevented a war.

Russia had backed down once already when A-H annexed Bosnia.  Germany and A-H believed Russia would do so again.  Russia ordered a limited mobilization as soon as Serbia appealed for help as much as a signal to Germany that it would not back down this time as anything else.

Germany and A-H could still have backed down and averted war.  Even after the Russian began to mobilize it was still not inevitable that the regional conflict would bring all the major powers into the fight.

[garbon]

I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

[crazy canuck]

I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

After the ultimatum was delivered Serbia requested the aid of Russia and Russia immediately ordered the moblization of 4 military districts iirc.  Serbia then moblized the next day and then the day after that gave their formal response to A-H.  Serbia wisely began moblization before giving the response because they fully understood that A-H was using their unreasonable demands as a pretext for war.

[Malthus]

I thought I'd read that Russia's general mobilization order came shortly after the partial mobilization order because it was realized a partial mobilization would fuck up plans if they needed to fully mobilize. And Russia general mobilization only took place after A-H had declared war on Serbia. Thus making Russia the one who expanded in the conflict.

Before the declaration, Russia had just pre-mobilized which according to Christopher Clark meant things like calling back reservists, promoting office cadets, making sure weapons depots were prepared, railroad repairs etc. Though apparently Russia did so along the whole eastern front and it could be argued that Germany/Austria could have seen that as "the opening phase of a mobilization proper". (Remarked upon by diplomats on the 26th but not announced by Russia till the 28th).

Oh and apparently some calculus in A-H that France/Britatin wouldn't join as Russia made the first move.

France could not afford to let Russia be defeated, no matter why Russia got into the fight. It would leave France alone to face Germany and A-H, which France could not do.

Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

[Valmy]

Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

The French sure didn't.  Their big goal in both World Wars was to make sure they had the UK on their side.  I like to think they had finally learned their lesson from history that the side with Britain on it always wins (eventually) in European Wars.

I believe during the pre-war meetings the British asked the French how many British Soldiers they needed and I think the reply was something like 'just one'.  They just wanted the British on their team.

[Malthus]

Everyone assumed at the outset that the UK would not matter much, because its army was tiny.

The French sure didn't.  Their big goal in both World Wars was to make sure they had the UK on their side.  I like to think they had finally learned their lesson from history that the side with Britain on it always wins (eventually) in European Wars.

I believe during the pre-war meetings the British asked the French how many British Soldiers they needed and I think the reply was something like 'just one'.  They just wanted the British on their team.

True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

[Razgovory]

You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

[Admiral Yi]

True, having an ally is always better than having an enemy - but it was the continental clash of armies that was supposed to be decisive, and most thought it would be decisive fast. Hence the German willingness to go through Belgum, even if this was sure to bring the UK in against them - why would that matter, if by going through Belgum Germany could crush France in a matter of weeks (or even a couple of months)?

In a long war the UK's control of the seas would be important, but not really in a short war. In a short war what would be important is the number and quality of soldiers each side could bring to the table.

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

[Valmy]

You know, since we are arguing over this and professional historians argue over it, I suppose that's a good sign that there is no one clear guilty party.

Well yeah.  You do not have this awesome amount of ink being spilt over the origins of the Second World War or debating who was responsible for the War of Austrian Succession or whatever.  Though virtually everybody blames Austria-Hungary, Germany, Serbia, and Russia to some extent.  It is just a matter of details.

[Valmy]

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Well impossible to beat them fast enough to avoid the Russian Steamroller.  Little did they know how impotent that steamroller was.

[alfred russel]

I think it's more accurate to say that Germany thought it was impossible to defeat France without going through Belgium, rather than making it inevitable.

Well impossible to beat them fast enough to avoid the Russian Steamroller.  Little did they know how impotent that steamroller was.

Say Germany had a reverse Schieffelin plan--defense against France, and concentration against Russia to knock them out first. Presumably that means no invasion of Belgium, and possibly no entry of the UK in the war. That also means no major submarine warfare, and probably no US in the war.

German victory?

[Valmy]

Say Germany had a reverse Schieffelin plan--defense against France, and concentration against Russia to knock them out first. Presumably that means no invasion of Belgium, and possibly no entry of the UK in the war. That also means no major submarine warfare, and probably no US in the war.

German victory?

I think it would have been hard for Germany to screw up that plan and lose (well maybe...invading Russia tends to go badly).  But this is Wilhelm II's Germany so you never know.  Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory was sort of their specialty.