What caused the outbreak of World War One?

[Dunenewt]

Those damn Germans at it again?  Or did the Serbians just cause a little too much trouble as usual?  Discuss.

[Wolf]

You mean... at it for the first time? The Germans didn't start the Great War, the British did -- or, more specifically, King Edward VII. If he hadn't manipulated Europe into a tangled web of conflicting alliances, then the "Serbian uprising" would have merely been one link in a long chain of bloody uprisings squashed by the Austrian/Hungarian Empire. Maybe Russia would have gotten involved peripherally (as they had gotten involved with the Turks fairly frequently in the 19th century, ostensibly to protect "Slavic and Orthodox brothers" in the Balkans), but it wouldn't have gone further than that.

[Khan]

There's an interesting Rob Newman piece (Semi lecture semi stand-up) where he sights oil as the reason for the first world war. Mainly his theory is based on the fact that the Germans were planning on building a Berlin to Baghdad railway and the first British Regiment was deployed in Iraq. At least I think that that was the gist of the argument.

[cnc95fan]

I blame the Crimean war, which practically divided Eastern Europe.

[Caid Ivik]

Those damn Germans at it again?  Or did the Serbians just cause a little too much trouble as usual?  Discuss.

Austria, emperor felt strong enough to press on Serbs because he was backed by Germany

[Anathema]

It was just waiting to happen. The fact that the Franz II assasination triggered it is more or less coincidence; but the Austrians could probably have gotten away with that still if they had reacted immediately instead of waiting for weeks and then issuing an ultimatum.

The web of alliances Wolf mentioned was a major underlying cause, though I don't know how much the British are to blame for that. Some people actually thought that alliances would in fact deter agression- it's entirely possible that a war would have breaken out a lot sooner, but with less nations involved.

Germany realized that if they had to fight the Russians alongside the Austrians; France might attack because they were Russia's ally and because they were eager for an opportunity to take back Alsace-Loraine and take revenge for the 1871 humiliation. Because of that, once it had been clear that war with the Russians was approaching, Germany issued a short-term ultimatum to the French demanding that they vowed to stay uninvolved.

This was necessary, so they thought, because tackling the Russians would be a bigger effort than the French. They had anticipated a war with the French-Russian alliance decades earlier and devised the Schliefen-plan; wich involved knocking out France quickly and than move all forces to the eastern front. If they were to ignore the French, they wanted an assurance that they wouldn't help their Russian allies.

As for the British; they had historically been hostile to the French; but after Germany became one state in 1871 they quickly became the most powerful country in west- and central Europe. Particulary the fact that Germany was working on a navy large enough to compete with the Royal Navy was a reason for concern. Britain wasn't formally allied with either the Russians or the French. They had, however, signed a treaty in 1839 in London in wich they garantued the independence and safety of the Belgian kingdom. When the German offensive rolled through Belgium, the British used the opportunity to enter the war on the French side.

[Tatar Khan]

WWI was caused by series of misunderstandings between the powers and prior conditions. Unification of Germany created a state was breaking the balance of power before held in Europe thus forcing Britain to act against it. Britain saw Germany's arms build up as a threat to Britain, Germany saw the British build up as a threat to Germany. Thus both great powers defensive build up were interpreted to be offensive build ups. This also stopped Germany from allowing Lord Grey to resolve the crisis.

France was upset about the loss of its two provinces during Franco-Prussian wars and so also would not have minded taking them back from Germany if the chance arose, this was driven by the people's wish to show Germans what France was made off.

"The Kaiser, in many ways the driving force of events, seems to have been driven by several false

assumptions. When he heard of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo he promised the Austrian Emperor his undying loyalty (Nibelungentreu or 'the blank cheque', as it is sometimes called), apparently supposing that the Austrians wanted merely to humiliate Serbia, whose cause the assassins supported: 'the situation would be cleared up in a week because of Serbia's backing down'. The Emperor himself - on whom the Kaiser was relying - probably did not want war, but his officials, including the military, did and the Emperor was no longer in

control. There was, however, no reason for this to become a general European war unless Russia came to Serbia's aid. The Kaiser's second false assumption was that his brother monarch, the Tsar would share his reaction to the regicide in Sarajevo ('the Tsar will not lend his support to royal

assassins') and agree that Serbia had to be punished. Unfortunately he was unaware of the pressures on the Tsar from public opinion: there were massive demonstrations outside the Austrian Embassy in St Petersburg. The government could not ignore such protests in a country that

had already suffered one revolution and might be on the brink of another. The Tsar, like his Austrian counterpart, was not in control...As it turned out, the Kaiser was not in control either: once the mobilization had begun, he discovered that the military plan - 'unalterable', he was told by von Moltke, his Chief of Staff was to attack France, thereby violating Belgian neutrality and ensuring Britain's entry into a general European war. " Robert Cooper, Breaking of Nations, 90-91.

[Egeides]

Regarding underlying alliances:

I do not know if the system of alliances left some implicit flexibility. From what I know of it, being "either/or" towards neighbors seems to destroy nuances and leave war. In truth, no country/person is all good or bad.

Intellectually, it seems "positivist" (knowing perfectly, etc.). In tangible reality, it looks like reacting sharply and in full based on the formal letter (diplomacy "science", in the wrong sense). Of course, national moods also get into this and act on this formal letter.

Adding possible national ingerences within this, it's a expect mess.

[Dunenewt]

Yes, von Moltke told him the plan could not be changed as the men were already on the trains.

[Anathema]

Egeides: there is the cae of Italy, who was allied with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. They refused to join the war on their side because they saw their alliance as a purely defensive arrangement, and they were of the opinion that it was all the Austrians' fault to begin with. Later on they entered war on the Allies' sides so that they could snoop off some territories from their former ally.

[Dunenewt]

I wrote an essay on this, I may post it later.

[Wolf]

Well, one thing I'd like everyone to consider is that all of these empires weren't really as powerful or well-organized as they'd like to think they were. I spent a semester rummaging through all sorts of British government documents from the first half of the 20th century at the PRO and found that all sorts of people in all sorts of positions were doing things incorrectly, without the proper background information, for dubious ends, often incompetently, and really, it's a miracle that these organizations (empires) function in the first place. Having studied Great Game stuff in Afghanistan between Britain and Russia, it's patently clear that neither empire really had any control on the ground, and that the majority of decisions made that affected greater power dynamics and imperial policy were made on an ad-hoc basis by mid-level field commanders and individuals of note. This speaks to the von Moltke issue up above, but we might want to consider that it was "bound" to happen not only because the underlying system of alliances was constructed the way it was (I'm still going to blame the English for that one), but because "empires" in and of themselves are organizations of momentum, not direction. The net result of all the lower- and mid-level activity snowballs into something the upper-level folks can barely predict or sometimes even react to.

[Edric O]

Everything that has been said in this thread so far is true - except perhaps for the idea that WW1 could have been avoided (I believe a general European war was inevitable, because so many powerful interest groups wanted a war).

I would like to take the argument further and say that WW1 was not the result of any particular web of alliances or chain of events, but rather the logical conclusion of 19th century politics. Each of the European powers had a political, military and business establishment that was convinced its interests were fundamentally opposed to the interests of political, military and business establishments in the other great powers. Since the defeat of Napoleon, the international status quo had relied on the notion of a balance of power, but this balance was inherently unstable because the ruling class in every country wanted to become more powerful and wealthy than the ruling classes in all the other countries. The peace of the late 19th century was a peace between hungry lions who refrained from trying to kill each other only because none of them thought it could win. Once the world got to that stage, it was inevitable that sooner or later one of the hungry lions - one of the great powers - would be in a position where it thought it could win a general European war, and so it would start such a war.

Basically, economic and political competition between the rising capitalist powers created the need for a balance of power in Europe. But this balance of power was unstable because each ruling class tried to use it to its own advantage, so it inevitably collapsed into open war.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

so, edrico, do you think that with globalization, and the development of global capitalism that a similar thing will happen again? Or have we learned our lesson?  Or are the economic/politico practices too different from what you described to draw similarities?

[Mahdi]

I blame Nicolaus Copernicus mother.  If she had had an abortion Copernicus never would have kicked off the scientific revolution, we never would have been so technologically advanced by 1914, the great powers would still be limited to communicating with each other by sail boats, the great alliances never would have formed, Franz would never have been assasinated (in the way that he was), the great arms race would never have taken place, the nations of europe would never have industrialized, and WW1 would never have happened. 

[Wolf]

Ha. Wait 'till Dante hears about that. He'll say that it was his fault that World War One happened, because he wasn't there to piss in the primordial ooze that spawned life on Earth.

[nemafakei]

Ugh, last time we used the time machine he scared all the Neanderthals away making penis jokes.

[Edric O]

so, edrico, do you think that with globalization, and the development of global capitalism that a similar thing will happen again? Or have we learned our lesson?  Or are the economic/politico practices too different from what you described to draw similarities?

There are many similarities between the global situation today and the global situation pre-1914, but there are also two major differences that make it very unlikely to have a repeat of WW1:

1. Conflicts between different sections of the ruling class no longer take place along national lines. In the pre-1914 world, it was British capitalists competing against German capitalists competing against French capitalists and so on. Now the competition is between a bunch of multinational corporations that are not affiliated with any particular country. So national governments and armies no longer get involved.

2. Today we have nuclear weapons. Any war between nuclear powers is suicidal - everyone knows that. So there cannot be any open war between the great powers.

We may end up having some kind of global conflict in the next few decades; in fact it is quite likely that we'll have one. But it will not be a conventional war between governments.

[Tatar Khan]

The next conflict would be along the Cold War style of conflict, waged through the proxies mostly in  Africa.

[Egeides]

erm.. how can a thread here degenerate like that?? o_o

Anathema:

It's an interesting piece. The mood there brought the Italians to use the case to opt out. And to go at war anyway (so useful :P). Not too sure that it could desamorce things... (and I have to leave now)

[Edric O]

The next conflict would be along the Cold War style of conflict, waged through the proxies mostly in  Africa.

I don't think so, because the Cold War was a conflict between governments. In the future, we will see more and more conflicts in which one or both sides are not governments, but rather private corporations or loose organizations like Al-Qaeda.

[Tatar Khan]

Private corporations need a government to shield them or they will be crushed.

Loose organizations need governments to shield them or areas of chaos such as Afghanistan or Iraq.

However the next stand down would be between US and China for the global leadership. China is growing to big and regional balance of power can't handle it. It is catching up technology wise, its military is catching up too (land forces are well trained and well equipped). Economy wise China is also getting huge. It is outgrowing the regional balance of power. China is moving into Middle East, Africa, and helping the "new socialism" movement in Latin America.

Russia will side with China since it is being provoked plus has an axe to grind against US.

Latin America will look to themselves most likely. If US is smart it will try to get a very good relationship with India to use that growing country (that is next to outgrow regional balance of power after China) to balance China.

Africa would be the biggest battleground as after years of problems that Africa blames on the West (some rightfully and some not) China is looking very appealing.

And this will happen soon because the timing is good:

China has Olympics to show itself off

US is one foot outside the recession and one foot in the financial crisis (which is hard to fix, it is reminds of 1970s stagnation).

Large forces are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan

US dollar is low

EU is not solidly behind US anymore

[Anathema]

@ Edric:

I don't think that major industrialists had much influence over anything. Surely the political leadership is much more responsible for the respective arms races than anyone else. And besides, a lot of capitalists, as you'd term them, were very much opposed to all-out war because the international banking system would crumble as a result.

It's interesting to note that the Germans in particular were concerned wether or not the socialists were not in fact a fifth collumn in their midst, but most governments managed to effectively co-opt their respective workers movements because down to the lowest man, most people believed that they were fighting in defense of their country as a whole.

As for a conflict of such a scale being inevitable, I'd say that there are a few plausible scenarios in wich things would have played out quite differently. Suppose for instance that Tsarist Russia would already have collapsed in the first decade of the century.

[Edric O]

Private corporations need a government to shield them or they will be crushed.

Not really - or rather, not any more. Corporations are increasingly able to rely on private security forces (a.k.a. "contractors") to enforce their will. And they can also use their economic power to bully or blackmail small countries into doing their bidding, at least in the Third World.

Loose organizations need governments to shield them or areas of chaos such as Afghanistan or Iraq.

The whole point of having a loose organization is that you are decentralized; you do not have a single headquarters that can be captured or destroyed. Even if perfect order was established in Afghanistan or Iraq, Al-Qaeda would still be able to survive.

However the next stand down would be between US and China for the global leadership. China is growing to big and regional balance of power can't handle it. It is catching up technology wise, its military is catching up too (land forces are well trained and well equipped). Economy wise China is also getting huge. It is outgrowing the regional balance of power.

However, China shows no signs of wanting to take over the role of global hegemon from the United States. Certainly there could be a global conflict between the US and China in the next few decades, if the Chinese ruling class wants it. But for the moment they seem content with growing their economy and establishing trade relations with the rest of the world. China might soon have the power to challenge the US, but I do not think they have the will to do it.

I don't think that major industrialists had much influence over anything. Surely the political leadership is much more responsible for the respective arms races than anyone else. And besides, a lot of capitalists, as you'd term them, were very much opposed to all-out war because the international banking system would crumble as a result.

The industrialists were the ones who empowered their political leadership in the first place, and they were the ones driving the global contest for domination between the European powers in the pre-WW1 period (particularly in the Scramble for Africa and other attempts to secure markets and resources around the world).

It's true that the capitalists were not the immediate cause of the war. They did not go to their respective governments to suggest that a war should be started. But they created the international tensions that made the war possible.

In the period between the mid-19th century and 1945 it was quite common for capitalists to empower strong nationalist governments in the hope that such governments would do their bidding, only to have the nationalists get out of control and start a war. That is what happened in the years preceding WW1, and that is also what happened with Hitler. After the Nazi gamble backfired so spectacularly, with Hitler running completely out of control all over Europe, most Western capitalists gave up on that strategy. Regional conflicts can be very profitable, but world wars tend to be really bad for business.

It's interesting to note that the Germans in particular were concerned wether or not the socialists were not in fact a fifth collumn in their midst, but most governments managed to effectively co-opt their respective workers movements because down to the lowest man, most people believed that they were fighting in defense of their country as a whole.

Yes - that was one of the most shameful moments in the history of socialism. To have so many socialists betray the cause of internationalism was utterly disgraceful. It's a good thing that at least some socialists stuck to their principles, like the German Spartacists or the Russian Bolsheviks.

As for a conflict of such a scale being inevitable, I'd say that there are a few plausible scenarios in wich things would have played out quite differently. Suppose for instance that Tsarist Russia would already have collapsed in the first decade of the century.

I don't know... a collapse of Tsarist Russia in the 1900s could have easily triggered a German and Austrian invasion, thereby leading to a world war anyway.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Regional conflicts can be very profitable, but world wars tend to be really bad for business

It depends on what business you're running, and many argue that WWII brought the US economy back up.  I don't necessarily think that:  just pointing out others views.  WWI certainly didn't help Germany. In fact it crushed their economy and social moral to the extend that they were ready to listen to any strong leader with a plan to put the nation back together...