Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

10 different answers from historians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I agree with Sir Max Hastings. He sums up what is undoubtedly a complex issue that academics discuss in depth on a regular basis. In fact it is amazing that 10 historians have come up with 10 answers; normally 10 historians would come up with 12 answers!  But there again perhaps they have here!

It was a war that could have been avoided, that had roots going back to 1870 and the Franco-Prussian War. Alliances, allegencies, treaties, and general bad politics amoungst the European powers, then an arms race between Germany and Britain, with stubbornness/stupidity that finally led to German mobilisation that once started could not be stopped.

Britain certainly did not need to involve itself in a land war with it's small standing army.  The Royal Navy, supremely powerful and designed to fight two nations navies at once, should have mounted a great blockade of ports supplying the German war machine. Later, around 1917, if Lord Kitchener had got his way, his modern army of by then 6 million men, fresh and well trained, could have been finally pushed into France for a mass offensive against a German army that by then would have been war weary. But instead a "cavalry" type attitude by General Haig and his key officers that led to the disastrous attacks against well dug in enemy. It was crazy, and some would say criminal. It should never have transpired, nor should the war itself! It was power play and very bad Imperial politics.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Britain certainly did not need to involve itself in a land war with it's small standing army.

Except for the fact that we were bound by treaty to protect Belgium.  So when Germany invaded Belgium.... 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Britain certainly did not need to involve itself in a land war with it's small standing army.

Except for the fact that we were bound by treaty to protect Belgium.  So when Germany invaded Belgium.... 

The Treaty in fact held no obligation for Britain to enact armed intervention in the event of a violation of Belgium's neutrality, only a consultative clause.  However the sentiment expressed of "Poor little Belgium" became a rallying cry of propaganda to justify British involvement.  This could and should have been avoided. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I would again reiterate that the origins and commencement of WW1 is highly complex and there are enormous amounts of published works that try to understand and explain the conflict. As a general observation it must be remembered that The Balkans, Serbia and importantly Russia were the major initial factors in the build up to conflict. It was Russia that mobilised it's forces first and started to threaten Austria and Germany.  Germany reacted - over reacted - depending on an historians point of view.

It still remains that Britain ended up fighting a war to protect old enemies; France and Russia against an old friend, Germany. As Hitler later correctly stated, Britain was not Germany's natural enemy. Britain and Germany had connected Royal Families; the Prussian army had saved Wellington and the British at Waterloo from certain defeat; Germanic tribes had incorporated themselves into the English nation after the Romans had left, and of course the Germans had the same enemy that Britain had - the French, with Germany winning the Franco Prussian War in 1871. That fact alone, and the loss of then French Alsace-Lorraine started a whole series of events that sparked WW1 and the initial complexities of French, German and British involvement.

However, history is that WW1 transpired and sowed the seeds of WWII.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Britain certainly did not need to involve itself in a land war with it's small standing army.

Except for the fact that we were bound by treaty to protect Belgium.  So when Germany invaded Belgium.... 

The Treaty in fact held no obligation for Britain to enact armed intervention in the event of a violation of Belgium's neutrality, only a consultative clause.  However the sentiment expressed of "Poor little Belgium" became a rallying cry of propaganda to justify British involvement.  This could and should have been avoided.

The Treaty of London guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and independence and was signed by the major European powers of the day including Britain and Germany.  So as a guarantor of Belgium's independence what was Britain to do when Germany invaded in violation of that treaty?   

You might well be right Lizzie that there were no explicit terms in the treaty committing Britain (or any other country) to military action in Belgium's defence, but I'm sure that they viewed things differently in 1914.    I'm also sure that the British Government were as determined to prevent the Kaiser from creating a european empire, as they were Napoleon 90 odd years before and Hitler 25 years later! 

As you say Belgium was only part of the puzzle of what started The Great War. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Britain certainly did not need to involve itself in a land war with it's small standing army.

Except for the fact that we were bound by treaty to protect Belgium.  So when Germany invaded Belgium.... 

The Treaty in fact held no obligation for Britain to enact armed intervention in the event of a violation of Belgium's neutrality, only a consultative clause.  However the sentiment expressed of "Poor little Belgium" became a rallying cry of propaganda to justify British involvement.  This could and should have been avoided.

The Treaty of London guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and independence and was signed by the major European powers of the day including Britain and Germany.  So as a guarantor of Belgium's independence what was Britain to do when Germany invaded in violation of that treaty?   

You might well be right Lizzie that there were no explicit terms in the treaty committing Britain (or any other country) to military action in Belgium's defence, but I'm sure that they viewed things differently in 1914.    I'm also sure that the British Government were as determined to prevent the Kaiser from creating a european empire, as they were Napoleon 90 odd years before and Hitler 25 years later! 

As you say Belgium was only part of the puzzle of what started The Great War. 

In fact Sir Tigger that should not have been a problem;Britain's interests lay in the Empire and did not involve Europe.  The Empire's strength was elsewhere, and if Germany took control of troublesome, and old enemy France, would  that have been such a bad thing.  Britain traded heavily with Germany but not France or any other country in Europe. The British could have continued with their Empire, whilst Germany ruled Europe. Britain could easily have worked alongside Germany, but instead war transpired and ultimately Britain lost considerable wealth, resource, and finally the Empire itself. Life in Britain after 1914 was never the same again and along came WWII to finish everything off and finally create a new super-power, the USA.

Wasted life, wasted opportunity, wasted resource, stubborn politics, bad military leadership and dogmatic Imperialism was the hallmark of The Great War.

[Johnny English]

I'm surprised on mentioning Hungary on the side of responsible countries as Hungary was definiately not an independent power but a part of Habsburg Monarchy with not independent foreign policy and after close 100yrs fighting for a real independency against Habsburgs it is to be red a bit shocking 

That fact alone, and the loss of then French Alsace-Lorraine started a whole series of events that sparked WW1 and the initial complexities of French, German and British involvement.

However, history is that WW1 transpired and sowed the seeds of WWII.

Loss of French Alsace - Lorraine ?      Alsace and Lorraine were original parts of German - Roman Empire with absolute majority of german speakers . In 1871 Germany just got back these territories. In my point all the treaties were wrong and caused wars later such Westphalian as Versailles treaty. If everybody satisfied why would launch war then?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I'm surprised on mentioning Hungary on the side of responsible countries as Hungary was definiately not an independent power but a part of Habsburg Monarchy with not independent foreign policy and after close 100yrs fighting for a real independency against Habsburgs it is to be red a bit shocking 

That fact alone, and the loss of then French Alsace-Lorraine started a whole series of events that sparked WW1 and the initial complexities of French, German and British involvement.

However, history is that WW1 transpired and sowed the seeds of WWII.

Loss of French Alsace - Lorraine ?      Alsace and Lorraine were original parts of German - Roman Empire with absolute majority of german speakers . In 1871 Germany just got back these territories. In my point all the treaties were wrong and caused wars later such Westphalian as Versailles treaty. If everybody satisfied why would launch war then?

Yes, but the French considered that region as part of their empire and the loss of it back to Germany was very painful to them. It had been considered by the French as part of their natural territories since they started to acquire those lands back in the 17th century, and strengthened their hold on them during the 18th century, before Germany as such existed so claims of any justifiable ownership by them is extremely weak. It had caused embarrassment to them to lose such a strategic area and The French wanted it back.  All that only further backs my statement that Britain should have supported Germany and not engaged itself in a war on the side of the French. Europe could go it's own way as Britain could have just concentrated on the Empire.

[Johnny English]

Yes, but the French considered that region as part of their empire and the loss of it back to Germany was very painful to them. It had been considered by the French as part of their natural territories since they started to acquire those lands back in the 17th century, and strengthened their hold on them during the 18th century, before Germany as such existed so claims of any justifiable ownership by them is extremely weak. It had caused embarrassment to them to lose such a strategic area and The French wanted it back.  All that only further backs my statement that Britain should have supported Germany and not engaged itself in a war on the side of the French. Europe could go it's own way as Britain could have just concentrated on the Empire.

Based on what if French is hardly spoken language over there...somewhere I red that looking of language using these areas have rather German speakers although looking of cultural ethnics or traditions these rather French.  It is uninterpretable for me. I can't imagine how can anybody be native German but have French traditions.  Seems a bit dummy explanation.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Yes, but the French considered that region as part of their empire and the loss of it back to Germany was very painful to them. It had been considered by the French as part of their natural territories since they started to acquire those lands back in the 17th century, and strengthened their hold on them during the 18th century, before Germany as such existed so claims of any justifiable ownership by them is extremely weak. It had caused embarrassment to them to lose such a strategic area and The French wanted it back.  All that only further backs my statement that Britain should have supported Germany and not engaged itself in a war on the side of the French. Europe could go it's own way as Britain could have just concentrated on the Empire.

Based on what if French is hardly spoken language over there...somewhere I red that looking of language using these areas have rather German speakers although looking of cultural ethnics or traditions these rather French.  It is uninterpretable for me. I can't imagine how can anybody be native German but have French traditions.  Seems a bit dummy explanation.

It maybe strange, but in history these things happen. Sudetenland contained within Czechoslovakia after WWI is another similar example, which of course Hitler laid claim to in 1938, and which now is part of the Czech Republic, although devoid of a large part of it's German speakers that existed before 1938. This is what happens in history; war transpires and people's of certain nations, speaking their own language, end up being ruled by speakers of another tongue. The Soviet Union had the same situation within it's empire. Do not forget, closer to home, that the English ruled over Celtic masses in Wales, Scotland and Ireland to form Great Britain. It is therefore not unusual for the ruling nation to have many diverse cultures within it's mix. The Romans of course were masters of that! 

Alsace-Loraine was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, so when that broke apart control over certain states dissipated, and that is just one factor in the complex mix of the origins of The Great War.

[Johnny English]

It maybe strange, but in history these things happen. Sudetenland contained within Czechoslovakia after WWI is another similar example, which of course Hitler laid claim to in 1938, and which now is part of the Czech Republic, although devoid of a large part of it's German speakers that existed before 1938. This is what happens in history; war transpires and people's of certain nations, speaking their own language, end up being ruled by speakers of another tongue. The Soviet Union had the same situation within it's empire. Do not forget, closer to home, that the English ruled over Celtic masses in Wales, Scotland and Ireland to form Great Britain. It is therefore not unusual for the ruling nation to have many diverse cultures within it's mix. The Romans of course were masters of that! 

Alsace-Loraine was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, so when that broke apart control over certain states dissipated, and that is just one factor in the complex mix of the origins of The Great War.

Lizzie, the countries mentioned above are artificially smithed formations that together never existed before. Very important question that people who live on a certain place whether where they want to belong to . Sudetanland does have mass of Germans, Alsace - Lorraine as well, the loss of them was pretty sure a real pain for the countries, which owned them possibly not for the people who lived there though. Czechoslovakia is also consisted of two countries, which were unable to exist beside each other so no wonder it had not been being too long. Soviet Union as well, Yugoslavia as well. The next war was coded off into such the Westphalian peace (that caused the WWI.) as the I. Versailles Treaty (that caused the WWII.) and the II. Versailles Treaty (that caused the civil war in Yugoslavia, and collapsing Czechoslovakia).  Rods2's article doesn't write about fault treaties but countries only.   

[Lizzie_Zoom]

It maybe strange, but in history these things happen. Sudetenland contained within Czechoslovakia after WWI is another similar example, which of course Hitler laid claim to in 1938, and which now is part of the Czech Republic, although devoid of a large part of it's German speakers that existed before 1938. This is what happens in history; war transpires and people's of certain nations, speaking their own language, end up being ruled by speakers of another tongue. The Soviet Union had the same situation within it's empire. Do not forget, closer to home, that the English ruled over Celtic masses in Wales, Scotland and Ireland to form Great Britain. It is therefore not unusual for the ruling nation to have many diverse cultures within it's mix. The Romans of course were masters of that! 

Alsace-Loraine was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, so when that broke apart control over certain states dissipated, and that is just one factor in the complex mix of the origins of The Great War.

Lizzie, the countries mentioned above are artificially smithed formations that together never existed before. Very important question that people who live on a certain place whether where they want to belong to . Sudetanland does have mass of Germans, Alsace - Lorraine as well, the loss of them was pretty sure a real pain for the countries, which owned them possibly not for the people who lived there though. Czechoslovakia is also consisted of two countries, which were unable to exist beside each other so no wonder it had not been being too long. Soviet Union as well, Yugoslavia as well. The next war was coded off into such the Westphalian peace (that caused the WWI.) as the I. Versailles Treaty (that caused the WWII.) and the II. Versailles Treaty (that caused the civil war in Yugoslavia, and collapsing Czechoslovakia).  Rods2's article doesn't write about fault treaties but countries only.   

As I have constantly stated the origins of the First World War are complex, and as the original post demonstrated different historians have varying opinions and observations - I have been privileged enough to sit listening to their arguments. Alsace-Loraine to many is a side issue, and the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 are the crucial issue. The "Third Balkan War" which should have been kept a local conflict was allowed to develop into a full scale war by extremely poor diplomacy in the July of 1914. As I stated before, Russia's mobilization heightened the tensions, and coupled with the flawed diplomatic process going on around Europe, Germany acted and furthered the by then unstoppable path to full scale war.

Britain however could have stayed out of it all, but the aforementioned bad diplomacy resulted in terrible miscalculations in especially Berlin of what Britain would do, and just worsened an already awful situation. Britain put itself in the thick of it on August 4th 1914 by declaring war on Germany and mobilizing it's military forces, including a small standing army that was not ready for modern warfare. The German army was. All this was in the midst of political confusion in London, with emotions running high, and various cabinet ministers resigning over this progress into a war they could not agree to, although in principle Britain would support France in any conflict. Confusion led to telegrams being sent threatening war, and then being amended after the Foreign Office received false information of war being declared on Britain by Germany. A complete mess ended the awful diplomatic events of the last 13 days and Europe found itself at war.

[cem_devecioglu]

this two is close but doesnt reflect the complete picture

* Gerhard Hirschfeld - professor of modern and contemporary history, University of Stuttgart

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

* Sean McMeekin - assistant professor of history at Koc University, Istanbul

Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

actual reason is capitalist elite rulers fighting for their market.. rest is story..

[Johnny English]

As I have constantly stated the origins of the First World War are complex, and as the original post demonstrated different historians have varying opinions and observations - I have been privileged enough to sit listening to their arguments. Alsace-Loraine to many is a side issue, and the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 are the crucial issue. The "Third Balkan War" which should have been kept a local conflict was allowed to develop into a full scale war by extremely poor diplomacy in the July of 1914. As I stated before, Russia's mobilization heightened the tensions, and coupled with the flawed diplomatic process going on around Europe, Germany acted and furthered the by then unstoppable path to full scale war.

Britain however could have stayed out of it all, but the aforementioned bad diplomacy resulted in terrible miscalculations in especially Berlin of what Britain would do, and just worsened an already awful situation. Britain put itself in the thick of it on August 4th 1914 by declaring war on Germany and mobilizing it's military forces, including a small standing army that was not ready for modern warfare. The German army was. All this was in the midst of political confusion in London, with emotions running high, and various cabinet ministers resigning over this progress into a war they could not agree to, although in principle Britain would support France in any conflict. Confusion led to telegrams being sent threatening war, and then being amended after the Foreign Office received false information of war being declared on Britain by Germany. A complete mess ended the awful diplomatic events of the last 13 days and Europe found itself at war.

Thanks for chatting Lizzie, I really enjoyed   

Laszlo