First World War - Causes

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

This topic is for discussing the Causes of WW I, Both immediate and long term. You can posit what you think were the real causes or criticize conventional thinking or support conventional thinking.

[Silvana]

I support the idea that the (underlying) causes were varied, ranging from imperialism (take Africa for example), arms race (especially between France and Germany) and the quest for power through the shifting/formation of alliances (triple alliance vs triple entente, etc). This has been discussed before but the assassination of the archduke was only a catalyst that set off the war.

It is interesting also to discuss that this war marked the end of a peaceful (almost) 100 years dubbed as the 'Concert of Europe'. As what happened in WW II, Germany (as the sick man of Europe due to its loss in the previous major war), who suffered due to so many sanctions inc. fines, territory losses etc, started the war. I wonder if Napoleon didn't attack Germany, thus there were no Napoleonic wars, no the Vienna and Aix-la-Chappele agreements, would the Germans have any reason to actively initiate/provoke the war?

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Silvana wrote: "I support the idea that the (underlying) causes were varied, ranging from imperialism (take Africa for example), arms race (especially between France and Germany) and the quest for power through th..."

Silvana, There was a war between France and Prussia/Germany in 1876. There was also a great deal of conflict in the Balkans prior to 1914.

France wanted the territory back that they lost in 1876 which is why they were so ready to go to war in 1914.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Did anyone read The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman. If you did, what do you think of her analysis of the causes?

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

No, war between Prussia and Austria in 1866.

Prussia's war with France that led to the creation of Germany was in 1870.

I think the important thing about those 19th century wars was that they were not "general European wars": it didn't spread war in circles - no "entangling alliances."

[Sandra]

Ed, I read it years ago and thought it was fascinating. Now you've piqued my interest and I will re-read it. My main interest has been the War Between the States. I think it's time to move on in history. I'll come back later, after I have educated myself a bit.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

I have read The Guns of August, and find it excellent.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Susanna wrote: "No, war between Prussia and Austria in 1866.

Prussia's war with France that led to the creation of Germany was in 1870.

I think the important thing about those 19th century wars was that they wer..."

Good point, Susanna, I hadn't thought of that. Still calling the Hundred years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and WW I, peaceful, is stretching it, a bit, I think.

I agree there was a great deal of scientific and economic progress in Europe. So has there been, world-wide since the end of WW II along with a bunch of "little" wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

[David]

Ed wrote: "Did anyone read The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman. If you did, what do you think of her analysis of the causes?"

I thought her analysis was right on.
The arrogance of national leaders is infuriating.
I think the Afterword is the best part of the book, especially her comment about both sides struggling, only to trade one water filled trench for another.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

David wrote: "I thought her analysis was right on.
The arrogance of national leaders is infuriating.
I think the Afterword is the best part of the book, especially her comment about both sides struggling, only to trade one water filled trench for another "

Arrogance of leaders continues. That's how we got into the quagmires of Vietnam and Iraq.

I love the water-filled trench remark. Millions died in the process.

[Jenna]

I wish the film version of Guns of August was easier to get a hold of. (though sometimes I see DVD versions floating around ebay...)

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Jenna,

You'll find 22 copies available at Amazon.com.

Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/6302703832?t...

[Jenna]

Oh, good, thanks - I'll have to look again. The last time I looked, there was only like 1 copy for $100...

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

I had no idea there was a film version of Guns of August!

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Susanna wrote: "I had no idea there was a film version of Guns of August!"

Neither did I.

[David]

In case any members are New Yorkers, the N Y Public Library has an audio version of The Guns of August available for free download. Useage rights expire 21 days after download.

[David]

I’ve read about one third of The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 by Barbara W. Tuchman. It is written so well, that I’d never guess that it is a collection of essays.

The anarchists of that era were not so different from the terrorists of today.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

David wrote: "I’ve read about one third of The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 by Barbara W. Tuchman. It is written so well, that I’d never guess that it is a collection of essays...."

I've got the PB book. Just haven't gotten around to reading it.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 is most interesting, and I really enjoyed reading it.

I've re-read it several times, as well.

[Gabriele]

Although this doesn't discuss the causes of WW1, it does give an interesting snapshot of pre-war England, when the English “danced on the edge of the abyss” - The Perfect Summer: England 1911, Just Before the Storm by Juliet Nicolson, granddaughter of author Vita Sackville-West. It's rich with the details of everyday life and looks at various aspects and levels of society - royalty, debutantes, politicians, poets, butlers, strikers, and more. A fascinating read.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

Another good book for those interested in Europe in the years just before the war is The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900-1914 by Philipp Blom.

[Bettie]

Recently read The Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One to a 5*, and Susanna, I have The Proud Tower to read. I see you liked it very much.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Bettie wrote: "Recently read The Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One to a 5*, and Susanna, I have The Proud Tower to read. I see you liked it very much."

After reading your review, I have added it to my TBR list. Sounds like a fantastic read. Oops! I discovered it's already on my list. Gotta move it up, though.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

The Proud Tower is excellent.

[[deleted user]]

I take a much longer view. In my opinion, the sweep of western history was set into a conflict when Holy Roman Emperor Charles V abdicated in 1521, splitting the dynasty into a senior branch that held sway in Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, and a junior branch that had control of the Austrian (German) areas. The two branches have basically been in conflict ever since, even though the House of Habsburg became extinct in the early 18th century.

Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I think.

[Gemma]

I think WWI started as a local war between Austria-Hungary/Serbia. Once the big players (Germany, France, Britain, Russia) joined, it spiralled out of control. Neither side could win outright, yet neither could they afford to let the other win.


Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? is an excellent account of the months leading up WWI, and the key players involved.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Gemma wrote: "I think WWI started as a local war between Austria-Hungary/Serbia. Once the big players (Germany, France, Britain, Russia) joined, it spiralled out of control. Neither side could win outright, yet ..."

The problem is that once Austria-Hungary and Serbia mobilized Russia and Germany were forced to because of treaties and once Germany mobilized, France felt it had to mobilize also which brought in the British.

[Gemma]

Ed wrote: The problem is that once Austria-Hungary and Serbia mobilized Russia and Germany were forced to because of treaties and once Germany mobilized, France felt it had to mobilize also which brought in the British.

Exactly. I think there was also a real fear of German/Prussian militarism, which goes back to Bismarck and the creation of Germany.

BTW - The Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One is excellent. It's not really about the First World War, more about the limitations of monarchy in this period.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

The part of the mobilization follies that strikes me as particularly ridiculous is Germany demanding that Russia only mobilize on the Austrian border.

Actually, it was the invasion of Belgium that officially brought in the British; they were in the weird position of having made military plans with the French for the defense of France from the Germans, without being obligated by treaty to go to war if Germany invaded France (and had both a government and a population that probably would not have gone for that). They were, however, a guarantor of Belgian independence; I still can't believe Germany didn't take that seriously. (There's a great section in The Guns of August - I think it's "War Plans" - about this.)

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Susanna wrote: "The part of the mobilization follies that strikes me as particularly ridiculous is Germany demanding that Russia only mobilize on the Austrian border.

Actually, it was the invasion of Belgium that..."

Thanks for straightening me out on this. I now remember that the German invasion of Belgium was the trigger for England's entry.

The Von Schlieffen(sic) plan required Germany to sweep into France through Belgium. That's why they did it.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Susanna wrote: "The part of the mobilization follies that strikes me as particularly ridiculous is Germany demanding that Russia only mobilize on the Austrian border.

Actually, it was the invasion of Belgium that..."

Thanks for straightening me out on this. I now remember that the German invasion of Belgium was the trigger for England's entry.

The Von Schlieffen(sic) plan required Germany to sweep into France through Belgium. That's why they did it.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

Yes, the German plans required the violation of Belgian neutrality. The mental gymnastics the German high command went through to convince themselves that the Belgians would be A-OK with this are extraordinary, and sometimes very funny (in a black farce kind of way).

[Silvana]

Belgium seemed to be always the one to conquer. Having important the Antwerpt port did not help.
So does the Alsace Lorraine region (every time there's a war, the ruler always changed, from the French to the Prussians/Germans etc).

Gemma's suggested book up there looks great. Tuchman did touch this subject in the opening of her book.

[Mary JL]

I did read Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914.

It was excellent. Slightly off topice her book The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam is excellent as well and not as well known.

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Mary JL wrote: "I did read Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914.

It was excellent. Slightly off topice her book The March of Folly: From Troy ..."</i>

I am having trouble with [book:The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914 I've been reading it a few pages at a time for about six months. I loved The Guns of August.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

Have you read The Zimmermann Telegram, Ed?

[Ed, Chief Curmudgeon]

Susanna wrote: "Have you read The Zimmermann Telegram, Ed?"

No I have not. I know the story, though. Pretty dumb of the Germans. I assume you thought it was a good read.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

Yes, I enjoyed it. It was, in fact, my first Tuchman - I was 15.

[Tim]

Another very good book on this subject is Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War by Robert K. Massie. As the title suggests, it focuses primarily on Britain and Germany, and the events that led Great Britain to joining the continental fracas.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady]

Yes, that's a good book, too.

I keep meaning to read Castles of Steel, which is the sequel.

[KOMET]

Several years ago, I read The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Alistair Horne.



It has, as its focus, the Battle of Verdun, through which the Germans hoped to bleed the French Army dry and make the French sue for peace in 1916. Truly a fantastic book.

[Tim]

I started Castles of Steel awhile back but wasn't able to get through it. It's very dry compared to the rest of Massie's books. I've been meaning to go back and give it another try though.

[KOMET]

I'd like to recommend this new book --- Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War I by Michael S. Neiberg.




"The common explanation for the outbreak of World War I depicts Europe as a minefield of nationalism, needing only the slightest pressure to set off an explosion of passion that would rip the continent apart. But in a crucial reexamination of the outbreak of violence, Michael Neiberg shows that ordinary Europeans, unlike their political and military leaders, neither wanted nor expected war during the fateful summer of 1914. By training his eye on the ways that people outside the halls of power reacted to the rapid onset and escalation of the fighting, Neiberg dispels the notion that Europeans were rabid nationalists intent on mass slaughter. He reveals instead a complex set of allegiances that cut across national boundaries.

"Neiberg marshals letters, diaries, and memoirs of ordinary citizens across Europe to show that the onset of war was experienced as a sudden, unexpected event. As they watched a minor diplomatic crisis erupt into a continental bloodbath, they expressed shock, revulsion, and fear. But when bargains between belligerent governments began to crumble under the weight of conflict, public disillusionment soon followed. Yet it was only after the fighting acquired its own horrible momentum that national hatreds emerged under the pressure of mutually escalating threats, wartime atrocities, and intense government propaganda.

" 'Dance of the Furies' gives voice to a generation who found themselves compelled to participate in a ghastly, protracted orgy of violence they never imagined would come to pass."