Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you could, but "A Marxist History of the World" does a better job summarizing. I know that through the lens of your personal economic theory, you feel that you can explain the reasons for virtually everything. However, I do question the appropriateness in this forum when your responses are often masquesrading as a way to discuss your beliefs. Especially in threads with rather defined topics like this one. Perhaps these "diatribes" would be appropriate in a "theory of history" thread? Afterall, I could easily sum up your point in far fewer words...
Q: Whose to blame for causing WW1?
A: The western system of capital predicated on land exploitation.
My less "opinionated" take...
Many economists and historians point to the Long Depression of 1873 as being the beginning of the descent towards WW1. The Long Depression was unique as it saw contraction of growth, but growth still occurred. Delfation and not inflation as would be seen in the post-WW1 years was the norm. This unique situation led to a rise in protectionism. In order for protectionist nations to secure economic expansion, they looked towards colonialism to capture new markets. Nations engaged in protectionism while seeking colonial expansion engage in military buildup. The stage was set.
Geopolitically, against this economic backdrop, it was the weakening of the British Empire and the rise in power of a unified Germany that saw the balance of power begin to shift. From 1873 on, England was no longer the worlds supreme economic power. That mantle had been taken by the United States and Germany. Germany's economic might led to their military buildup and growing assertiveness in European affairs (helped for sure by their victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War).
This led to the French working to protect themselves against growing German power. These machincations led to the careful system of alliances designed to check German power. Foremost among these was the Franco-Russian alliance. Russia needed France's financial support to remain among the "Great Powers" of Europe and France needed Russia to provide balance and help bring it out of its political isolation. Through it all, England and their response to a conflict was the wildcard.
Against this backdrop the events of the "July Crisis" were played out:
The situation could have been defused several times along the way...Had Germany more forcefully insisted on Austrian restraint....Had Russia chosen not to back the Serbians and mobilize their army...Had the British come out immediately as siding with the Entente serving as a deterrent to German mobilization...Had Wilhelm been a better statesman...
My overall view is that Germany and England were the nations that had the power to prevent a relatively minor crisis from escalating into what became WW1.
One person: Kaiser Wilhelm II. He gave Austria free reign to do what it would with Serbia. Serbia had already acceded to all of Austria's demands except one: to allow the Austrian police to enter Serbia. With this backing Austria declared war on Serbia on 7/28 to enforce this provision of their ultimatum. Russia mobilized two days later, and WWI was underway.
One person: Kaiser Wilhelm II. He gave Austria free reign to do what it would with Serbia. Serbia had already acceded to all of Austria's demands except one: to allow the Austrian police to enter Serbia. With this backing Austria declared war on Serbia on 7/28 to enforce this provision of their ultimatum. Russia mobilized two days later, and WWI was underway.
Well I don't think that's fair, the Germans did back the Austrians almost immediately after the Assassination. Think perhaps of immediate action in direct response to the assassination.
I think the month inbetween the assassination and ultimatum exposed Austria's real intent, not justice but conquering Serbia.
Also Russia took a very aggressive stance because of the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese war, being in a state preparatory to war before either Austria or Germany declared was, once the Russian machine lurched into action there was no choice for Germany to declare war on Russia before they could invade. Then the cascade begun.
One person: Kaiser Wilhelm II. He gave Austria free reign to do what it would with Serbia. Serbia had already acceded to all of Austria's demands except one: to allow the Austrian police to enter Serbia. With this backing Austria declared war on Serbia on 7/28 to enforce this provision of their ultimatum. Russia mobilized two days later, and WWI was underway.
I don't think it is that simple.
--- Austria did not have to attack the Serbs.
--- Germany did not have to back the Austrians (thus Austrians have to back down)
--- Russia did not have to back the Serbs (thus localized Austrian-Serbian war)
--- France did not have to back the Russians over Serbia (thus Russians probably back down)
--- Britain could have made her intentions known and could even had threatened both parties in some way
and before all this....
--- Serbia did not have to support terrorists cells in Bosnia
The major powers were war-hungry by 1914. There hadn't been a major European war since the 1870's. Nationalism was at a fever pitch. War was a popular idea amongst the general populace.
Germany was a burgeoning superpower both economically and militarily, and their population grew to nearly double that of France. France wanted revenge on Germany for the Franco-Prussian War and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Germany felt boxed in on two fronts by bitter enemies, the French and Russians, who in turn attempted to contain Germany expansion. Germany viewed defeating France a necessary prerequisite to facing Russia militarily to avoid a two-front war.
The British vowed Belgian neutrality to maintain a foothold on continental Europe. The British and Germans were engaged in a naval arms race. The Germans felt boxed in by British naval supremacy.
The Austrians were threatened by Russian expansion into the Balkans, and wanted Serbia to capitulate in retaliation for the assassination. The Ottomans were furious at the Russians due to losing territory from a prior war. The Italians had territorial ambitions on Austria's southern front. The Russians played the protectorate card over the Serbs to try to expand their influence.
Well I don't think that's fair, the Germans did back the Austrians almost immediately after the Assassination. Think perhaps of immediate action in direct response to the assassination.
I think the month inbetween the assassination and ultimatum exposed Austria's real intent, not justice but conquering Serbia.
Also Russia took a very aggressive stance because of the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese war, being in a state preparatory to war before either Austria or Germany declared was, once the Russian machine lurched into action there was no choice for Germany to declare war on Russia before they could invade. Then the cascade begun.
I agree, but would point out that German, France, and to a lesser degree Britain and Austria-Hungary were also in a similarly preparatory state. Each of these countries had spent the years preceding WW1 rapidly building up their armed forces. They each had millions of troops at their disposal ready to hit the battlefields almost immediately.
The Germans in particular developed a plan for full mobilization within 48 hours of war being declared. This meant that several million troops would actually be marching across Belgian and Dutch territory 2 or 3 days after war breaking out. German planning involved defeating France first quickly, then turning all of their might east towards Russia to avoid a two-front war. This plan was predicated on the notion that the French would mobilize much more rapidly than the Russians.
I agree, but would point out that German, France, and to a lesser degree Britain and Austria-Hungary were also in a similarly preparatory state. Each of these countries had spent the years preceding WW1 rapidly building up their armed forces. They each had millions of troops at their disposal ready to hit the battlefields almost immediately.
The Germans in particular developed a plan for full mobilization within 48 hours of war being declared. This meant that several million troops would actually be marching across Belgian and Dutch territory 2 or 3 days after war breaking out. German planning involved defeating France first quickly, then turning all of their might east towards Russia to avoid a two-front war. This plan was predicated on the notion that the French would mobilize much more rapidly than the Russians.
Not Great Britian, the UK had very few ground troops in Ausgust 1914 at least compared to the Continential powers.
Also Russia's state was to mobilization as an AUMF is to declaring war, the same thing but it sounds nicer. By mid July war seemed on the horizon and Russia was not as mechanized as the West so they took longer to mobilize so they had started earlier.
The British vowed Belgian neutrality to maintain a foothold on continental Europe.
No. The British did not want a foothold on Europe. They turned their backs on the place and faced the open sea. Belgium was created primarily by the British as a buffer state (hence two languages) between the French and the Dutch. To keep the French in France.
Well, you could, but "A Marxist History of the World" does a better job summarizing. I know that through the lens of your personal economic theory, you feel that you can explain the reasons for virtually everything.
I do tend to be very good at that though.
A pity Karl Marx did not write that book as it would have been different.
You need to get to the root cause which was economic and at least have some sort of solution to prevent these conflicts reoccurring - to eliminate at root. Most of the posts here are all about what started the fighting (who threw the first stone), phaffing about on the surface, while the root of the conflict was much deeper.
Quote:
Many economists and historians point to the Long Depression of 1873 as being the beginning of the descent towards WW1. The Long Depression was unique as it saw contraction of growth, but growth still occurred.
The long depression caused the Grab for Africa for sure. Why did they want Africa? It was the wealth of its land and resources, that is why. That was perceived as the way to more wealth and get out of the depressed situation they found themselves ion. In short appropriating "economic rent", unearned income. Even the USA went on a land grab in west and overseas.
Quote:
Geopolitically, against this economic backdrop, it was the weakening of the British Empire and the rise in power of a unified Germany that saw the balance of power begin to shift. From 1873 on, England was no longer the worlds supreme economic power.
Britain was strong, and was until WW1 and possibly quite a time after as well. What caused Germany to militarise?
They had no great empire to protect. The way to instant wealth then was to "rent seek" - appropriate wealth others owned or created. "rent seeking is still the way to quick and unearned wealth.
Get to the root. Try. Do not phaff on the surface.
The reason Germany was boxed in in 1914 was the Kaiser's bellicosity. He ignored Bismarck's maxim that the key to a successful foreign policy was a good treaty with Russia. He surrounded himself with the most militaristic advisors, like Schlieffen. His proration to the German soldiers sent to repress the Boxer rebellion chilled the world.
He engaged in a naval buildup that challenged England. Even the most ignorant of leaders should have known its inevitable response: to meet the buildup and to ally with opponents to the challenger. He met a personal, in person appeal by King Edward with scorn.
England and Germany were related by blood. Wilhelm was in part raised in the Hanover (ne, Windsor) household. He managed to make an enemy out of a friend.
So in 1914, Germany found itself isolated, only Austria left as a friend. As a German general said, Germany was shackled to a corpse.
Other actors in the WWI leadup and ignition had parts, but only as bit players.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
