10 interpretations of who started WW1

[Barrister]

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.

I dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

[crazy canuck]

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?

The standard answer to this of course is that Germany believed it could knock France out quickly enough that it could turn its resources to the East before Russia fully mobilized.

In her most recent book MacMillan has an interesting counter theory.   Germany considered a defensive posture in the West while attacking Russia but stayed with the Schleiffen Plan because:

1) administrative inertia - it would have taken a great deal of time and energy to revamp the war plan.  It was much easier to stay with the status quo of a plan that had been refined over many years; and

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

[Admiral Yi]

Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

[crazy canuck]

Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

That is a good point. 

[Malthus]

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.

They needed to crush France fast, or thought they did. I don't think they thought it was impossible to beat France without going through Belgium, but rather that it was impossible to do it quickly enough to deal with Russia in turn (not anticipating how worthless the Russian generals would turn out to be).

[Malthus]

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.

I dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

What BB said.

[Valmy]

Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

My view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

[crazy canuck]

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.

They needed to crush France fast, or thought they did. I don't think they thought it was impossible to beat France without going through Belgium, but rather that it was impossible to do it quickly enough to deal with Russia in turn (not anticipating how worthless the Russian generals would turn out to be).

Macmillan would say they didnt really consider another option again for the reasons of administrative inertia.  It would have taken a lot of time and effort to redo the plan so that it didnt include going through Belguim.  She also points out it was a lot of the right hand not knowing, or more properly caring, what the left hand was doing.  The military made its war plans without any consideration of what the dipomatic consequences might be.

[crazy canuck]

Another factor to consider is that with no Belgium invasion you eliminate a lot of the negative publicity that turned early neutral opinion against Germany.

My view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

[Valmy]

If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

[alfred russel]

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

That doesn't make sense. You have a 2 front war. In the event they planned to play defense on east and offense on the west. An alternative plan to be on offense in the east and defense in the west isn't less manly.

[crazy canuck]

If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

Why do you always assume I am disagreeing with you

[crazy canuck]

2) being on the defensive was the stuff of cowards - it was considered unmanly and detrimental to the moral of the army and the nation not to attack.  This signficantly reduced the chances anyone would try to make the argument for a defensive posture on the Western Front.

That doesn't make sense. You have a 2 front war. In the event they planned to play defense on east and offense on the west. An alternative plan to be on offense in the east and defense in the west isn't less manly.

I suppose it doesnt make sense it one doesnt take into consideration that for Germany its main rivals were France and England.

[Valmy]

If the battle of the Marne had gone their way the Germans would have quickly defeated France and the plan would have worked as intended. 

Yes.  And?  They lost it primarily because of strategic and political blunders.  Without those France would have had no chance.

Why do you always assume I am disagreeing with you

I don't.  I was not clear if you were saying 'I agree and for example look how they blew the Battle of the Marne' or 'Nah their strategy worked but at the end of the day it was their inability to win on the battle field that did it'.

[Sheilbh]

I dunno - when I looked at the original article it seemed like there was a consensus that Austria and Germany were mostly at fault, then everyone else quibbled whether some blame could also be attributed to other partes.

Yeah. I think there's an extent where these arguments conflate long-term causes of the war and the immediate causes. The long-term cause seems to be the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic system and blame can be apportioned to all states for that. The immediate cause at the July crisis I think blame can be more directly placed with Germany and Austria.

But that doesn't mean they're at fault for the conditions in Europe being so good for a war, and it also doesn't mean that war was inevitable and just waiting for the right crisis (which is why I think Serbia deserves some blame).

My view is that Germany should have won this war.  They had the best army in the world.  They just messed it up strategically and politically.

How much does having the best army in the world matter when the entire way of fighting war is different? Or when faced with a crippling naval blockade?