|
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 07:00 PM by liberalpragmatist
I'm going through a bit of a WWI-thing right now. I just can't get over how tragic, unnecessary, and thoroughly ridiculous a conflict WWI was. In many ways, it's more tragic than WWII. WWII resulted in far more deaths - close to 50 million by some estimates - and included the Holocaust and massive devastation of European and Asian cities. But WWII was more justifiable - given the rise of Hitler and Japanese militarism, some kind of confrontation was necessary and proper and at least some good came of it in the form of the liberation and stabilization of Western Europe, the establishment of democracies in Italy, Germany, and Japan, Decolonialism, the formation of the United Nations, and the saving of at least half of Europe's Jews. Unfortunately, the other half were not so lucky.
But it's difficult to come up with any truly good outcomes to World War I. And while it's difficult to see how armed conflict could have been completely averted, it truly was unnecessary. As the saying goes - WWI was the avoidable war that nobody tried to avoid; WWII was the unavoidable war that so many tried to avoid. The slaughter was so senseless. In a more just world, nearly all the generals would have tied up and charged for war crimes, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of young men for only a few miles of territory. The war led quite directly into WWII, the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Bolshevik Revolution which led to the Cold War, and so much of the conflict in the Middle East that continues to
In the end, there's a lot of debate as to which of the major nations involved was most responsible for the war. Of course, in answering the question, you could go for the cop-out and say "everybody" :) - but I think it'd be a more interesting discussion running through which one or two nations you think were most responsible.
Serbia - With ties to terrorist groups like the Black Hand agitating against Austro-Hungarian rule and Pan-Slavic aims, Serbia's actions led directly into the conflict by leading to the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Of course, it's doubtful that Serbia directly caused the escalation of what was supposed to be a narrow conflict between AH and Serbia into a much wider conflagration. Plus, they actually accepted most of Austria-Hungary's demands.
Austria-Hungary - In seeking a "final reckoning" with Serbia, Austria-Hungary's rulers decided to throw away diplomacy and make a strike on Serbia, irresponsibly brushing off fears of Russian entrance into the conflict. Austria-Hungary was also politically unstable. If it wasn't quite as weak and tottering as the Ottomon Empire, it was clearly in need of major reform. The leaders of AH felt that war could destroy the various national movements within the empire by crushing the South Slav nationalist movements and uniting the other peoples of the Empire. Had they been more aware of Russia's likely involvement, would the Great War have been avoided?
Russia - Humiliated by their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Czar and his advisors wanted a war or at least some kind of quick military confrontation in order to boost patriotic feeling in a rapidly industrializing but politically weak Russian Empire, in order to defuse calls for greater democratization and autonomy or independence for various nationalities. Though allied with Serbia, there was no inherent need for Russia to get involved, and their involvement directly led to German, and then French involvement. Had Russia stayed on the sidelines, would nothing more have occurred other than a third Balkan War of 1914?
Germany - Germany encouraged Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia, believing that such a confrontation could strengthen their unstable neighbor to the South. They hoped to at least win a moral victory, strengthen their Southern flank, and shore up their position on the continent. At the same time, German militarism had been rising for quite some time. They had openly provoked Great Britain and France with their pursuit of an arms race and their naval buildup. The Prussian Junkers and the ruling establishment in Berlin believed a war at some point was likely, and many argued that if Russia and France became involved, it would offer the opportunity for Germany to make a pre-emptive strike, particularly at Russia. They also hoped a military victory would strengthen their rule over Germany, as that position was being threatened by the socialists and the Social Democratic Party. On the other hand, there were quite active efforts as the continent hurtled to war to avert one, as many generals realized that a short, relatively bloodless war was not at all a sure thing.
France - French militarism had been exceptionally strong in the leadup to the war. Where Bismarck, before his removal, had tried to avoid a European war, many governments in France actively sought it. French revanchism was strong, and the desire to retake Alsace-Lorraine was deep-seated. The French were well-aware that regaining Alsace-Lorraine would be impossible without a war. Their rivalry with Germany would not have permitted them to tolerate German expansion in the East. The decision of France to get in created a two-front war and was a prime contribution in forcing Britain into the war.
Britain - Some British historians have taken the previously unorthodox view that Britain was responsible for the war. Without British involvement, there might well have been a conflict in the Balkans. But British involvement turned the Western Front into a bloody stalemate, and directly caused a world war, as the vast forces of the British Empire was mobilized across the world. British diplomacy leading up to the war was badly botched, and Britain's war aims were vague and unclear in the months and weeks preceding the war. The conflict in the Balkans war mostly ignored in England and it was less than two week period that summer that led to British involvement. The Germans had not calculated that the British would get involved. Had they stayed out, the result may well have been a quick, relatively bloodless German victory. (Whether that would have prevented further conflict down the road is an open question). Otherwise, some have argued that had Britain clearly communicated to Germany that they would not tolerate German invasions of Belgium and France, it's possible - even probable - that Germany would have backed down, realizing that a two-front war against Britain, France, AND Russia would be a war of attrition and that a German victory was not even that likely.
The United States - The U.S. was a late entrant into the war. WWI is sort of a forgotten war in the U.S. today, completely eclipsed in culture and popular memory by WWII. But it's easy to forget that the U.S. lost nearly 150,000 troops in World War I and caused massive domestic strife at home. Some have argued that without U.S. involvement, the war would have remained a stalemate in Europe and the European powers would have given up due to exhaustion, a year or two earlier than they actually did. This could have resulted in an armistance between the European powers in which no side had a victory and the senseless killing stopped.
***
I know little of Ottomon involvement in WWI. If somebody can explain how the Ottomons could have held responsibility for the conflict, I'd be quite interested.
As for me, I tend to put most of the blame on Russia and Germany - of the two, primarily Russia. Without Russian involvement, the war would have remained a regional war that didn't engulf all of Europe or the entire world. Russia was not directly threatened by the conflict, which was largely an internal matter between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Without Russian involvement, there would have been no German, French, or British involvement.
So, assuming this thread doesn't sink like a stone - what do you guys think?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
