1914 - A World on the Brink.

[Brian Wolfe]

The outbreak of the First World War should be seen in the same light as a domestic dispute as viewed by the neighbours. Or better yet by the neighbours great grand children one hundred years later. Who shot who and what was said at the trial is all well documented and memories tainted by the media of the day and in the present. No one stops to think about what first led to that fateful decision to resort to violence.

><

Europe had not seen a large scale war for almost one hundred years before 1914. The Napoleonic War probably should be seen as the first World War as it involved pretty much every continent at the time much as what we now call the First World War. This left Europe with nearly a century of peace, punctuated by smaller wars that were over relatively quickly (sound familiar). Russia had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1905 and left them looking for a means to re-establish their honour on a world scale. Russia of the time had never forgiven Austria/Hungarys annexation of Bosnia in 1908 and added to this Russia had failed Serbia when they were confronted by Austria-Hungary at that time and again in the Balkan Wars of 1912 1913.

Germany had also failed to back Austria-Hungary during the confrontations mentioned above so both Germany and Russia were looking to regain the confidence of their people in the area of global politics and alliance obligations. In addition to this Austria-Hungary as well as the Ottoman Empire were in trouble from within and needed to be seen as supporting their nations rights and pride.

Britain had suffered greatly in the eyes of the world, outside of their own Empire, due to their actions in South Africa and either needed to turn inward to bolster their image or be very careful not to find themselves in another embarrassing fiasco, at least in the eyes of non-Empire nations. France was still bitter over the Franco Prussian War in 1871and their loss of territory due to that conflict. There were jealousies outside of Europe over the colonies held by the powerful nations. Japan was eyeballing the colonial holdings in the Pacific and perhaps we should include America in this category to a point.

There was also a belief that any war could be avoided through diplomacy and even through the threat of war. Up until 1914 a threat of war had always been enough to get both parties to take a step back and reconsider the situation; after all no one really wanted war. A buildup of naval power between Germany and Britain is now seen as leading inevitably to war, however, this may not actually be the case at the time. The Kaiser felt that a stronger naval presence would elevate the nation on a world scale and thereby strengthen them as a trading partner with other powerful countries such as Britain and to a lesser degree, Japan. The other benefit in the view of many at the time of an arms buildup, especially naval, was that it assured a balance of power thereby avoiding any future wars. It was the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario (is this starting to sound even more familiar).

The buildup of the German Navy was viewed by Russia as a threat as they had lost two thirds of their naval fleet to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. All Russia had left was their Baltic Fleet. In order to compensate for this inequity Russia sought to ally herself with France. Russia had the man-power but lacked the machinery of war, so to speak; an alliance with France, Germanys traditional enemy, would help balance the scales.

Add to this the theory of Social Darwinism, that being that the strongest nations would survive and the weaker nations would go, for the lack of a better term, extinct. It was a matter of evolution, natural and inevitable. Also at that time the general feeling within many nations was that there was glory in war and that is was one of mans greatest callings. Remember that the horror of the first great war, the Napoleonic War, was no longer in the living history and much of what had been written for the civilian readership would have been glorified.

The musket of fate had been charged with powder, the ball seated, the pan primed and the hammer at half cocked, just waiting for the next action. Like any firearm left loaded and laying around it was only a matter of time when one of the children would decide to play soldier.

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire decided to use the assassination of the Arch-Duke as their casus belli and attack Serbia. The reasons now seem slightly unimportant considering what was to follow. It could have been for more territory, expansion of Empire, or simply a matter of regaining lost national pride and bolster unity in an already fragmented Empire. Remember that the track record for such military actions was that it would be a short little war which would no doubt be mediated by a third party. A treaty would evolve and gains made at an acceptable loss of men and material.

However, since Germany had allied herself with Austria-Hungary and in essence given them a card blanc for their actions. Perhaps Austria-Hungary had counted as much on Germany as a mediator as it was a military backup; but that is even more speculation than even I am prone to offer up for debate (even though I just did).

Russia, not wanting to be seen as once again letting down an ally, as she had in the 1912-1913 Balkan War, and declared war on Austria-Hungary and her ally, Germany. German response was to attack France as she was an ally to Russia and a quick victory on their western front would eliminate the need to fight on two fronts and allow the full might of the German war machine to be concentrated on Russia. Good sound German military thinking, too bad for them no one else was ready to except this fine German rational. Once France had been attacked Britain was drawn in to the fray through their alliance with France.

Up to the last minute on 4 August, 191 4 war could have been avoided but the decision was made to continue. Rational thinking had gone out the window to be replaced by amygdala hijack on a global scale.

Regards

Brian

[paul wood]

Brian,

In theory it could have been avoided however what is more amazing was that war had not happenned earlier. Certainly something would have started it off, had it not been Sarajevo something else would have occurred to set the powder keg off.

Paul

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Paul,

I believe that you are 100% correct, it was a matter of "when" rather than "if".

Regards

Brian

[Ulsterman]

Barbara Tuchman: "The Proud Tower" and "The Guns of August" are well worth reading. Also, Fritz Fischer and his critics are dead on point. Fischer was a conservative who pretty much proved that the German"military-aristocracy" really were the cause of the war and the subsequent tsunami of human misery.

the USA was not really part of this equation, as its seizure of the Philippines was strongly opposed by the majority of Americans until Kipling's poem, "Take Up the White Mans' Burden" was published. despite what some trendy 'historians' have recently written, the US foreign policy was neutral, disengaged and focused upon South America, with a mild shrug of "so what" at Pacific shenanigans.

One might also confidently state that Alfred T Mahans' book was the catalyst since the Kaiser and Tirpitz both thought it almost biblical. after Tsushima, most of the European nations conceded German control of the Baltic and indeed, this was even a factor in the establishment of the Reichsmarine by the Versailles Treaty. One might argue that this is de facto the case even today.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Ulsterman