germany pushed into ww1

It was in a book, which I cannot remember. I remember using this snippet in a university presentation I had to do on the short-term causes of WW1 in my first year. This is the best I can do from the 'internet'.

http://www.thesophist.com/index.php?id=64

But what must be noted is that the German General Staff had a mind of their own, almost void of political control. Once a plan was implemented, the machine was difficult to stop.

I see Russia as a non-entity regardless of whether they mobilised first. If you look at Russia's past war experiences they mostly lost. The Crimean War and the Russo-Japanese War - utter disaster.

Nevertheless, Russia had a legitimate reason to mobilise as Serbia was being unduly treated. Germany of course was rather militaristic. Woodrow Wilson opined that the cause of the war was due to militarism. Quite frankly I agree with him. I am absolutely certain he speaking specifically about Kaiser Wilhelm.

This can be the true reason that Russia mobilised their army - for fear of attack from the Germans. If we do the reverse as historians and look to present for insight in the past we can better understand the nature of Germany. Germany's actions in WWII furhter gives evidence to the 'manifest destiny' doctrine that they held in their hearts. Some way or the other they were determined to take over Europe and then take it from there.

I don't accept your view on Britain. While Britain did not formally make an association, it was clear that Britain had no intention of suppporting Germany. For evidence of this have a look at the Morrocan Crises that occurred prior to the war.

And in any case by this time Britain had already entered an Entente Cordiale with France. France as well was in good relations with Russia. There were signs of the formation of the allies many years before the issue with Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Germany as well as Austria-Hungary had the necessary pressure to show some restraint.

Of course this is just a speculation but Germany refusal to condemn Austria-Hungary's actions showed their support in the unfair treatment of Serbia. Austria-Hungary could behave in any manner they wanted because they had German backing.

I am certain that if the assasination did not occur Germany would have found another way into military action. The Morrocan Crisis shown that the Kaiser was looking for ways to start conflict.

Given all this I would say Germany pushed everyone else into war.

I strongly disagree...the Kaiser did not want war! In fact he tried to, just before the start of the War, to persuade the Tsar(a close relative of him) to stop Russia's mobilisation!! Germany gave Russia a realistic Ultimatum to do so, but the Russians simply ignored the warning. The Kaiser also had strong links to England and always considered himself to be partly british (his mother war the Queen)...On the contrary the Allies had plenty of reasons to weaken Germany..the issue with france seeking for revenge has been suffienctly discussed, but i would like to mention a further fact: Germany was, by 1914, the LEADING economy(invention of Diesel and artificial "kaujuk") in Europe, so they had NO reason for going to war..Bethmann(german chancellor) litereally said, when asked about the reasons of the war:" If i only knew..." This is evidence that even from part of the German government war was not expected or planned..The marocco crisis that you mentioned: In the end the Germans retreated, so the Kaiser did show some militarism, but he realised the danger of the situation and decided to withdraw..!!

I do agree that Germany should have been more careful in handing out Austria the permission to declare war on Serbia..but the Germans were hoping to intimidate Russia..The german government thought that by demonstrating strength it could actually prevent a major conflict, as the Allies and Germany had done in the past..so bare that in mind, before accusing Germany of pushing everyone else into the war...

How you can call Russia a 'non-entity' is astounding. They were pivotal in the series of events. No Russia, no war. It's like calling Germany a non-entity in the Second World War. Their military strength has nothing to do with their actions.



The word 'legitimate' is subjective and I would argue there is no such thing. But let's take what you say for sake of argument, in which case, how is Russia's case anymore 'legitimate' than Austria's, Germany's, France's, Britain's etc? Surely Russia mobilising first is cause enough for 'legitimising' an appropriate response from the Germans?

Germany was no different in it's imperialist ambitions than any other major European power. She wanted her share aswell, more than a sausage factory in Tanganyika. Woodrow Wilson also 'opined' a 14 point plan and a League of Nations, but didn't sign up to it.

To be honest, the population of Europe seemed to have an appetite and zest for war, fuelled by nationalism. There was no major political force that spoke out against war and consequently, the politicians' foreign policy stance had to be seen as tough and aggressive, unwilling to back down. This would have reflected badly in diplomatic communications as nations were unwilling to compromise. The situation might well be akin to Europe pre 1815 and the Vienna treaty. The other reasoning behind the population’s support for war at the time was, especially in countries with Empires (France and Britain) was that it was seen that the model of fighting would be like those colonial victories experienced against lesser opponents. The slogan “back before Christmas” consequently added confidence and support for a ‘jolly good war against the ‘bosch’. As for Britain, it was impossible for her to remain neutral as diplomatic agreements with France (such as the entete de cordiale) meant she had to support her if her colonial agreements were to mean anything. France could also not be allowed to fall in Britain’s eyes as the use of her ports accounted for much trade and could thus not be allowed to fall into German hands.



You're using a statement like 'true' in a historical argument? No, they were decisions based on the information at the time. There is no 'truth' to the matter.

Germany, had earlier pledged on the 5th of July 1914 to give Austria its unconditional support for whatever action she wished to undertake. Russia similarly offered the same to protect Serbian sovereignty. However, unlike the Bosnian crisis of 1908, Russia did not back down this time. A series of delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications between Russia and Germany (known as the ‘Willy and Nicky correspondence’ and the poor reliability of the system meant crucial telegrams were not received on either side or were delayed by hours, sometimes even days. This panicked the Russians into ordering a partial mobilisation of the reserves on the 16th of July. German intelligence got wind of military movements in Russia and reported back to the German Ministry of War. Germany sent an urgent telegram to the Russians asking them to back down and stop mobilising. The telegram made the Russians even more suspicious and thus prompted them to fully mobilise on the 30th. The Germans, alarmed by this responded in kind on the 31st and declared war against Russia on 1st August 1914.

It was unfortunate that events took place during the month of July - a holiday month when politicians and diplomats were away from their desks.  By the time the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum had been issued on 23 July - and after a cooling-off period had been allowed by the Austro-Hungarians, who remained anxious to avoid a general conflagration - both the French Prime Minister, Rene Viviani, and President, Raymond Poincare, were away from France on a diplomatic mission to Russia.   There, at St. Petersburg, they reaffirmed their support for the Tsar, Nicholas II, in his backing of Serbia.

The Germans only had one war plan should the event arise - the ‘Schliefen plan’. This revolved around mobilising troops as quickly as possible making a pre-emptive strike against an potential enemy before they could fully mobilise before a prolonged conflict could ensue. As a result, once mobilisation had started the Germans (or anyone for that matter) could not back down, as to do so would be loosing a crucial advantage over the enemy. The whole war by timetable would be lost and give time for the enemy to catch up with its mobilisation.

Military theorists of the time generally held that seizing the offensive was extremely important. This theory encouraged all of belligerents to strike first in order to gain the advantage. The window for diplomacy was shortened by this attitude. Most planners wanted to begin mobilization as quickly as possible to avoid being caught on the defensive. Some analysts have argued that mobilisation schedules were so rigid that once it was begun, they could not be cancelled without massive disruption of the country and military disorganisation. Thus, diplomatic overtures conducted after the mobilizations had begun were ignored.



As a Brit, I doubt you would. There was also no indication that Britain would get involved at all. Germany had no clue as to her colonial agreements with France and what they actually meant. For all they knew, Britain could just sit by in splendid isolation, leaving the business to sort itself out. The British Government, and its Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, attempted to mediate throughout July, reserving at all times its right to remain aloof from the dispute.  It was only as the war began that the British position solidified into support for, ostensibly, Belgium. Hence the oft-levelled criticism that had Britain come out clearly on the side of Belgium and France earlier in July, war would have been avoided: Germany would have effectively instructed Austria-Hungary to settle with Serbia, especially given the latter's willingness to co-operate with Austria-Hungary.



The entente cordiale was not an alliance, let's get this straight. There was no obligation to defend one another. It was an utterly separate gentleman's agreement over their respective Empires. France did however have a SECRET military alliance with Russians years before hand.

I don't quite know what you're thinking here, or if you know how power-politics works, but you can only say with the benefit of hindsight that this would have led to the conclusive disaster. What Austria saw was an opportunity which they took. Yes they were vigorous, but it was their own back yard.



Germany probably didn't care about Serbia per-say, it was a minor player of insiginificance which was a security threat to the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz's assassination merely gave a pretext to what had been an Austrian problem for years and to finally act upon it.



Doubtful. The Moroccan crises was designed to embarass the Old Empires and to test the strength of the entente. Nothing more. If anything, Germany saw the entente as an aggressive move by Britain and France, shifting the balance of power. It's called sabre rattling and a common facet of international politics. The Germans weren't looking for war, just a piece of the pie.



I fail to see how.

If as you said Germany did not want a war then why behave so aggressively. Clearly, the Germans believed in their own “manifest destiny” and inevitably would seek to pursue it.

We must also take into consideration that Germany’s economy was in competition with Britain. Therefore, Britain and Germany would both have some motive to enter war. This is a point I would however admit to being minor.

Well...didnt france and england behave in the same aggresive way towards germany during the marocco crisis?!?!?! (keeping to your "logic" this would suggest that Britain and france wanted war a longtime before germany?! )

and no, i did NOT support ure point..i underlined that the Kaiser was actually hoping to PREVENT a major conflict rather than to cause one..

Yes but who started the Morrocan crisis?

NO! we must rather take into consideration that Britain was frightened of germany's economy, which had already overtaken the British economy before the war started...consequently, from an economic prospective, Britain had more reaons to go to war than Germany..all major historians agree that Germany, after becoming the leading economic power, would have become the most powerful nation in Europe if it had been for the war...

Edit: How can you call an economic reason to be "minor"...pretty much all wars in history were fought due to economic reasons...

I wouldn’t say the Kaiser did not want war. It was clear that he was being insinuating, and in this, antagonizing the situation. As I have said before the Moroccan crisis is perfect evidence of this. The Kaiser only withdrew from the Moroccan crisis when the issue became not only with France but with Britain as well. He would be a madman to enter a war under a disadvantage. The Kaiser did want war he just wanted Russia as an ally or a neutral party - especially when Germany knew France would find them self in any action against Germany. The asset Russia would be in a war against France would have been great. There was also the fear that Russia, France and essentially Britain and Italy would join in against Germany.

We must also take into consideration that Germany’s economy was in competition with Britain. Therefore, Britain and Germany would both have some motive to enter war. This is a point I would however admit to being minor.

To your last statement, you are actually supporting my point. Demonstrating strength is succinct evidence for Germany pushing everyone else into the war. If as you said Germany did not want a war then why behave so aggressively. Clearly, the Germans believed in their own “manifest destiny” and inevitably would seek to pursue it.

I call Russia a non-entity looking at history from a psychological perspective. While we can argue that maybe Germany saw themselves as invincible we know that they dared to stand up against Russia. But I will concede on this point. In the end Russia proved play a pivotal role. The fact that germany had to deal with both Russia and France and then Britain caused the end result of WWI.

I agree that in the writing of history one must use disgression. Legitimate is in fact an objective word in this context. One can argue that all effects have legitimate reasons. Subjective only comes into play if one says that the principle was correct or wrong in his or her actions. Legitimate means reasonable. Hence, there was some rationale involved in the undergoing of actions.

In any case, to continue the argument, I agree with you Germany, France, Britain etc all had legitimate reasons. Moreoever, even if Russia’s mobilisation prompted actions from Germany, Russia mobilisation was still reactionary to Germany’s first actions. Therefore, it is Germany that would have first started the ball rolling.

I continue to maintain that Germany wanted to have her share. I have explained it as a German manifest destiny. This may have been the most notable point. The world was already divided up among the Imperial powers. Germany’s sudden desire to have a share essentially would have sparked actions to cause a war. Don’t you agree?

Nationalism was rampant in Europe and the population did have an apetite for war. Woodrow Wilson was the one to state militarisation as the main cause of the war. I agree with him to a great extent. The autrocratic nature of Germany especially allowed for the decision of war to based on the whim of one person. Other European nations such as Britain didn’t have such an autocratic system in place and war was not as easy to start from their sides at least. In shorter words, it was easier for Germany to enter into war, or behave in a manner to cause the war.

Britain did have good reason to not remain neutral. Of course, had it not been for the aggressive nature of Germany there would be no issue to remain neutral of.

“True” used here was simply a synonym for “main”. In any case these words can be used sparingly. I said “can be” and not “was”.

It can be argued that if the Germans toned down their aggressive nature after Russia started to mobilised the issue may not have been escalated. You have said it yourself, once mobilisation started they could not back down. The Schliefen’ plan also brings up a point to note. The fact the only military plan Germany considered involved both Russia and France is evidence to their intentions of war with these two nations. Russia’s action could have simply been as I have argued before reactionary.

I must also make mention that I am not a ‘Brit’. I am a West Indian. Britain’s role in the Morrocan crisis indicated some intention to the Germans. Germany’s quick economic rise also came into conflict with Britain as well.

On the Entente Cordiale, I am simply suggesting that it may have been an indication of their cooperation in war. Especially as these nations slowly began to become anti-Germany lead of course by France.

Whether the Germans were looking for war or not, their wanting to get a “piece of the pie” warranted action from the other European powers – a contributing factor to the start of the war.

I maintain that it was Germany’s actions as well as attitude that antagonised conditions. Therefore, I fail to see how Germany was pushed into the war.

I agree economic reasons are big, but its never the obvious or easiest factor to explain. Germany may have been leading the economic fight but you have failed to give evidence as to how Britain in fact pushed Germany into war. In fact, some one above mentioned Britain rather lax attitude to entering the conflict.

Schlieffen died a year before the war started, Germany made its own decision to enter the war. It could have broke the triple alliance, Italy did so easily in 1916. It was the Kaiser his want for German empire to expand to be that of Britain. In many wars he did dismantle the British empire, as Britain had to give independance to those imperial countries that fought for them.

Which is why strategists have argued that this was the reason why the plan was so poorly implemented. Only Schlieffen knew its complexities.

Germany made a decision based on national interest, like every other nation that entered the war. Germany wasn't any different in asserting herself, any "less innocent" than the other powers.

This whole "one-man" theory is beyond belief, it's as if people are searching for scapegoats, which the Kaiser more than provides. But you're all basing it on bibliographical history which is only a semi-reliable source. Germany's aspirations to be an imperial power stretched back some 50 years to the time of Bismarck.

Bismarck predicted the first world war what with the Kaisers aggressive ambition and Bismarcks dismassal left him free to pursue his foreign policy. .

Bismarck predicted the first world war what with the Kaisers aggressive ambition and Bismarcks dismassal left him free to pursue his foreign policy. The problem with the Kaiser was he was too much like his grandfather Wilhelm rather than his father Fredrick Wilhelm who could have avoided war easily.

no he didn't! he said that the young kaiser would destroy everything he had built up...noone predicted a world war..even weeks before the war, nobody actually believed that such a conflict was possible..