Did WW1 really have a reason?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#1

Post by paulrward » 05 Aug 2020, 19:05

Hello All :

In the year 1920, the London Daily Mail offered a prize of 100 pounds for the best fictional
headline.

The winning contribution was :

"Archduke Franz Ferdinand Found Alive: World War Fought By Mistake..."


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#2

Post by Sheldrake » 05 Aug 2020, 21:37

alibabakes5 wrote:
05 Aug 2020, 12:27
I’m guessing this is more of a philosophical question and I’m more interested in your personal opinion. Factually, one could argue that it was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, or that it was about colonies, stopping German mainland dominance, etc.

But for me it’s quite hard to grasp why WW1 had to happen. It’s hard to find any rational reason. It’s almost like a bunch of people with stiff hats and handlebar mustaches idolized war and in the end they let out an uncontrollable Monster that consumed human flesh by the millions. As if it was the climax of 19th century romanticism.

Like no one knew what they were going into and no one really knew what they were fighting for, only that they can’t lose.

In the end even the victors came out worse than if they had just lost 4 years earlier.

WW2 was basically the rematch of WW1. WW2 also had ideologies battling with each other. WW1 had no ideologies, just a pointless waste and suffering of millions of human lives.

What are your thoughts?
You have started a very broad open ended question about a topic which has exercised great brains since 1914. The subject has generated enough papers and books to fell se3veral forests. As a starting point try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiog ... orld_War_I Then revisit with a more focused question.


Paul H
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 26 Jan 2014, 03:10

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#3

Post by Paul H » 27 Nov 2020, 14:38

Yes WW1 had various reasons, for example the potential for war for Britain did not come at a better time due to the poverty the elite were facing a potential uprising and type civil war, hence any excuse to go to war was good. I got that information from a English historian.

Having said that If could well be possible that a similar problem with poverty etc that English were having could of been same real reason the Elite German were happy to go to war. Maybe somebody who knows German history could expand.

User avatar
Hans1906
Banned
Posts: 4560
Joined: 07 Jan 2020, 00:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#4

Post by Hans1906 » 27 Nov 2020, 23:05

alibabakes5,

the real "reason", Oha...

Both great grandfathers, Franz Folkerts, and Heinrich-Christian Westerholt were soldiers in the first World War.

Victims of politics, they killed and were wounded, eastern front, russia, western front later, whatever one is able to imagine...
Heinrich-Christian passed away 1947, Franz in the late 1960s.

Great grandfather Franz, I remember him from the 1960s, a gnarly old man, he never smiled, sitting very close to the oven in the
living room all day long, always freezing, no more toes at all, his toes he left behind in the russian winter.

Looking at the very few photos of both greatgrandfathers and their families nowadays, this is very strange,
hope to share a few old photos later...

My grandmother, born in the year 1914, she always rememberd her father Franz as the "tall man with a red beard", she grew up,
while her father served in the war...
When Franz returned in 1918, he did not recognize his youngest daughter anymore.


Hans1906
The paradise of the successful lends itself perfectly to a hell for the unsuccessful. (Bertold Brecht on Hollywood)

hselassi
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 04 Mar 2009, 02:57

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#5

Post by hselassi » 28 Nov 2020, 22:41

I would say it was your standard European tribal war, they like having one of those every century (WWI, Napoleonic Wars, 7 Yrs War, 30 Yrs War, and so on back to the fall of the Roman Empire).

Everything would have worked out well (we'd be having the "X" Years War right about now), except our Klansman in Chief just had to save his godly English and put an end to the evil Catholic Habsburgs, so the US messed up the process and we got WWII, the Cold War, US as World Policeman, and after only four years of sanity, we are back to being Europe's b***h (hooray 0.5% defense budgets are back, Uncle Sugar will fight our wars for us again).

Just my 2 cents worth, with tongue maybe planted near cheek.

/s/ Harry

User avatar
MG1918
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 03 Jul 2004, 20:05
Location: UK

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#6

Post by MG1918 » 31 Jan 2021, 15:40

A very broad question to answer and must must must be addressed with the acknowledgement that hindsight can greatly impact upon perception.
All too often opinions are given now (and I am not talking about militaria web sites in isolation) without a real grasp of the pressures or influences at the time. Not sure I would agree with Paul H about UK's social domestic reasoning though - I cannot see how that had any trigger and impact on adhering to International treaties and the Kaiser's envious desire for an Empire compatible, or better than the British Empire at the time. With hindsight I think in very general terms we can perhaps see how WWI could have been perhaps avoided, but again with only a fraction of the feeling at the time. I believe no one should ever say there was no reason for WWI, if nothing else simply to remember the Fallen and how it has shaped our countries today. For better or for worse.
Historians are great and add value :>) but I never ever take it as Gospel. For example there is a school of thought now that WWII should have an official start date of 1931 with the Japanese and Chinese.....so many opinions!!!! I listen also with great interest what our British History teachers are teaching our British children and then today - just look at BLM and the challenges there, or some idiot desecrating War Memorials and is let off AND now not specifying whether people are male or female - what will the human race, if there is one, think a 100 years from now on our lives and our politics!!!!
Mark Finneran
''Seeking all MG items, parts, manuals, detail, MG accessories and original tactics/notes for the WW1 Imperial German Army MG08 & MG08/15. Also looking for T Gewehr & the 13mm ammunition please''

User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#7

Post by jluetjen » 05 Feb 2021, 01:08

I saw a recent presentation on Youtube from one of the commemorative symposiums where the presenter* made a good point. Yes, we all know that Serbian activists killed Arch Duke Ferdinand. Austro-Hungary invaded Serbia after that. If you were to think of the head of state or government for your current country (or even the #2, like the Vice President) -- if they were assassinated with a clear trail leading back to a neighboring small country -- it would not be outside the bounds of reason for that to be considered grounds the declaration of war. So that is somewhat understandable on the part of Austro-Hungary. Given that Serbia was a border state with the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary seemed to be generally content with keeping them in that position as opposed to expanding the empire further south in that direction.

But why did Russia go all-in and mobilize millions of troops to back up Serbia. As the presenter said: "Major world powers do not mobilize millions of soldiers and go to war to prop up a minor client state". There must be more to it.

After reflection I tend to agree with that. Yes, the France/Germany baggage dated back to the Franco-Prussian war. But what was Russia's baggage? I think that it goes back to the often forgotten Crimean War of 1853. The origins of that war are at least as murky as the origins of WWI, but the match that started it was the Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia (then part of the Ottoman Danube). This was part of a generations long effort by Russia to get a warm-water port which was not at risk of getting blockaded like the Black Sea was. I suspect that all of the religious subject were a bit of a cover for this. But given that the Crimean War was a bit of a stale-mate/loss for the Russians, this desire for an ice-free port remained unfulfilled. Layered on top of that was a simmering resentment of the Ottoman Empire for the loss. Much like the French feelings towards the Germans after 1871.

So I think that Russia was definitely aiming to expand it's reach through the Balkans to end-run the Ottoman empire, and I think that they figured that they could bully Austro-Hungary to do it. Yeah, it's not a fully formed thought yet, but there were definitely some strong undercurrents between Russia and the Balkans/Black Sea area which really haven't been examined yet. I think that the Russians felt that the gains justified the risks of war with Austro-Hungary, and more importantly Germany. But with the Franco-Russian treaty in-hand, I think that they felt they had the risks covered.

* I don't think that this presentation was the end-all on the subject of Russia in WWI, but I think that there were some "pearls" in the presentation. This point about "mobilizing millions of soldiers for a minor client state" is one of them that I think has some merit.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#8

Post by Sheldrake » 05 Feb 2021, 03:11

jluetjen wrote:
05 Feb 2021, 01:08
I saw a recent presentation on Youtube from one of the commemorative symposiums where the presenter* made a good point. Yes, we all know that Serbian activists killed Arch Duke Ferdinand. Austro-Hungary invaded Serbia after that. If you were to think of the head of state or government for your current country (or even the #2, like the Vice President) -- if they were assassinated with a clear trail leading back to a neighboring small country -- it would not be outside the bounds of reason for that to be considered grounds the declaration of war. So that is somewhat understandable on the part of Austro-Hungary. Given that Serbia was a border state with the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary seemed to be generally content with keeping them in that position as opposed to expanding the empire further south in that direction.

But why did Russia go all-in and mobilize millions of troops to back up Serbia. As the presenter said: "Major world powers do not mobilize millions of soldiers and go to war to prop up a minor client state". There must be more to it.

After reflection I tend to agree with that. Yes, the France/Germany baggage dated back to the Franco-Prussian war. But what was Russia's baggage?
This is the Great War on Terror approach. The Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia was similar to the US ultimatum to Afghanistan after 9/11. But great power politics comes into play. Russia saw itself as a protector of Slavs - the Serbs. It isn't a million miles from US support for Israel.

Something similar to WW1 could have occurred over some middle eastern conflict in third quarter of the 20th century. This was considered the most likely cause of WW3 at the time.

For what its worth one of my friends is a relative of Gavrilo Princep. Her daughter was at primary school with my son. When in year 5 they looked at WW1 and family involvement Alexandra proudly and correctly announced that her family started it. Serbia was one of the few countries to over-achieve its war aims - but at a terrible cost.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#9

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Feb 2021, 13:22

Hi alibababakes5,

The war was fundamentally about retaining/upsetting the balance of power, in which all great powers had an interest.

The people you accuse of idolizing war hadn't actually fought a similar multi-national war for 99 years.

There was nothing uniquely horrible about WWI. Indeed, it was one of those rare wars where soldiers suffered more than civilians.

People express themselves horrified by the fact the Western Front moved so little despite the casualties. Why is this worse than WWII, when the front moved a lot and caused some four times as many casualties?

Everybody knew what they thought they were fighting for. It was only in about 1930, when WWI became a job creation scheme for poets, playwrights and authors (including the creators of "Oh, What a Lovely War" and "Blackadder", both of which I thoroughly enjoy) that doubts really began to set in amongst the younger generation who had not served in the war but were disillusioned during the Great Depression.

In the early 1930s there was a famous Oxford Union debate in which the motion was to the effect that "This House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country." It passed overwhelmingly. Yet, less than ten years later 89% of Oxford students volunteered for military service at the first call!

You post, "WW1 had no ideologies, just a pointless waste and suffering of millions of human lives." WWII had lots of ideologies and cost several times as many lives. What is your point?

You ask, "What are your thoughts?" My thoughts are that you have bought the revisionist version of WWI without looking at it critically enough.

However, if you are a pacifist against all wars, that is at least an intellectually consistent position, even if I do not subscribe to it.

My grandfather hated the Great War, but he never expressed any doubt about its necessity. I think he was pretty typical of men on all sides.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#10

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Feb 2021, 20:23

alibabakes5 wrote:
05 Aug 2020, 12:27
I’m guessing this is more of a philosophical question and I’m more interested in your personal opinion. Factually, one could argue that it was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, or that it was about colonies, stopping German mainland dominance, etc.

But for me it’s quite hard to grasp why WW1 had to happen. It’s hard to find any rational reason. It’s almost like a bunch of people with stiff hats and handlebar mustaches idolized war and in the end they let out an uncontrollable Monster that consumed human flesh by the millions. As if it was the climax of 19th century romanticism.

Like no one knew what they were going into and no one really knew what they were fighting for, only that they can’t lose.

In the end even the victors came out worse than if they had just lost 4 years earlier.

WW2 was basically the rematch of WW1. WW2 also had ideologies battling with each other. WW1 had no ideologies, just a pointless waste and suffering of millions of human lives.

What are your thoughts?
I have been meaning to reply to this topic for some time but other things kept coming up and distracting me.

The problem here is the approach of looking for a single reason for the war. There was no single reason that caused everyone to fight, but there were many reasons depending on which nations viewpoint you approach the war from. As an example, Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too. Those reasons apply to no other powers. Germany fought to support Austria-Hungary over its war with Serbia, to break the Triple Entente alliance system, and to establish a postion of dominance over France and Russia before the Russian 'Great Program' could complete and make any war unwinable for Germany.

Each nation had its own reasons for fighting, including not being really given much choice in being able to avoid fighting, but there is probably no single reason that could be applied to them all, possibly even to each nation within either alliance structure.

User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#11

Post by jluetjen » 12 Feb 2021, 19:17

Well said Terry.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#12

Post by glenn239 » 12 Feb 2021, 22:43

Terry Duncan wrote:
10 Feb 2021, 20:23
. As an example, Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too.
So if the British fought to protect France and Belgium, but not Russia and Serbia, then it follows that the easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. Without this invasion route, the Germans could not break through the heavy terrain of the French fortified belt, and this would ensure that France would not be defeated. The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east, crushing Serbia in the fall of 1914 and defeating Russia in 1915 to end the war. This method had a doctrinal precedent; it is precisely the path chosen during the 1870 war when Great Britain signed two identical treaties, one with Prussia, one with France, that assured neither warring power would violate Belgium.

So then the question is, if Britain indeed had the aims you suggest, then were is the British offer to Germany as outlined above, to achieve it?

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#13

Post by pugsville » 13 Feb 2021, 01:15

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2021, 22:43
Terry Duncan wrote:
10 Feb 2021, 20:23
. As an example, Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too.
So if the British fought to protect France and Belgium, but not Russia and Serbia, then it follows that the easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. Without this invasion route, the Germans could not break through the heavy terrain of the French fortified belt, and this would ensure that France would not be defeated. The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east, crushing Serbia in the fall of 1914 and defeating Russia in 1915 to end the war. This method had a doctrinal precedent; it is precisely the path chosen during the 1870 war when Great Britain signed two identical treaties, one with Prussia, one with France, that assured neither warring power would violate Belgium.

So then the question is, if Britain indeed had the aims you suggest, then were is the British offer to Germany as outlined above, to achieve it?
Reallly. because that was not the form of diplomacy and international relations at the time.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#14

Post by Terry Duncan » 14 Feb 2021, 18:48

jluetjen wrote:
12 Feb 2021, 19:17
Well said Terry.
Thanks!

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Did WW1 really have a reason?

#15

Post by Terry Duncan » 14 Feb 2021, 19:04

glenn239 wrote:
12 Feb 2021, 22:43
Terry Duncan wrote:
10 Feb 2021, 20:23
. As an example, Britain didnt fight to support Serbia over the assassination, and not really to support Russia either, but she did fight to ensure Germany couldnt defeat France and reduce her to a second rate power status, and also to uphold Belgian neutrality. In that order too.
So if the British fought to protect France and Belgium, but not Russia and Serbia, then it follows that the easiest way for Britain to achieve that end is offer British neutrality to Germany in exchange for the Germans agreeing not to violate the neutrality of Belgium. Without this invasion route, the Germans could not break through the heavy terrain of the French fortified belt, and this would ensure that France would not be defeated. The Germans would leave a garrison in the west and then turn east, crushing Serbia in the fall of 1914 and defeating Russia in 1915 to end the war. This method had a doctrinal precedent; it is precisely the path chosen during the 1870 war when Great Britain signed two identical treaties, one with Prussia, one with France, that assured neither warring power would violate Belgium.

So then the question is, if Britain indeed had the aims you suggest, then were is the British offer to Germany as outlined above, to achieve it?
Serbia is not really of any interest to Britain other than in her ties to Russia. Britain has joint interests with Russia, but there is no real way for Britain to be directly involved in a war between Germany and Russia, so a conflict there would likely see diplomatic pressure applied for the parties to seek a settlement.

With regard the situation in the west, France is a critical interest for Britain and Germany cannot go to war with her without involving Britain, as it would be easy for Germany to attack Russia and defeat her, then turn west. Therefore, Germany cannot fight in the west at all. This is the answer to the many years of Germany asking 'please tell us how we can go to war with France and not see Britain involved', that Germany failed to take the hint is where her policy failed. Germany thinking 'there must be a way' does not make it so.

The offer of 1870 was a policy limited to that crisis, where Britain had been close to war with France under Napoleon III several times, whilst in the period 1910-1914 the two states were as good as allied for the purposes of a German attack. There was no obligation to repeat this policy, and Germany made no attempt to put such a policy in place until she was already decided upon war, although there was the thought of an offer in the confusion of the last days of peace. Germany knew she was considering war from the moment Bethmann and Wilhelm gave Austria the go-ahead for war with Serbia, but made no attempt to neutralise Britain by such an offer.

Would it have been possible if it had been attempted from early July? Maybe, if Germany was willing to undertake to make no territorial annexations for herself or Austria-Hungary. That would make it unlikely, but in theory it is possible should Germany offer Britain something concrete and not just lie and feign innocence.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”