Who is to blame for World War 1? (Poll)

This is quite an interesting topic, there is an argument to be said for all 6 options, although it is undoubtedly stronger for some.

As all of them undertook some action that led to war, it is more asking which country undertook the most actions and actually wanted a general European war.

Most of the blame goes to Serbia, secondary blame goes to Germany.

Serbia gets the blame for killing the Austrian guy (Austria-Hungary declaring war was legitimate). Germany gets part of the blame for essentially getting involved and pulling everybody else in. It could otherwise have been a rather simple and quick victory for Austria-Hungary.

If the above post is correct then it may be Russia which should take Germany's blame.

While various Serbian officials such as Apis (the head of military intelligence) and Tankositch were directly involved in the plot, there is no evidence that the Serbian government was. However, they knew about its existence and failed to make any real effort to prevent it.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by Germany 'getting involved and pulling everyone else in'.

In the same way that Afghanistan was legitimately invaded due to Al Qaeda i tend to view the response as legitimate. The Crown prince and only male heir was killed in Serbia, by Serbians and as you say there were people involved from the government. Imagine if one of Queen Victoria's children was killed and what our response would have been.

By backing Austria-Hungary militarily and invading France and Belgium, they escalated a minor conflict to a world war. Your post above though would suggest that actually Russia should take that blame and forced Germany's hand.

Basically, the only legitimate war was Serbia vs Austria-Hungary.

The people involved were not from the Serbian government, they were officials, although in the case of Apis a senior figure, acting without authority. BTW I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion that Serbia has its share of responsibility, though I don't believe that it deserves the primary blame. The escalation from a local issue to a European (/World) war lies elswewhere.

Your original post about Germany implied that Germany had stuck its nose in, which was why I asked for clarification. It was Austro-Hungary which went to Germany for support, not the other way round. When asked, however, Germany readily agreed to support A-H in whatever action it decided to take against Serbia. This was the infamous 'blank cheque' - one of the three main areas of blame which can be attached to Germany.

As I stated originally, I am in no way exonerating Germany. You correctly point out the invasion of Belgium, which was a result of the rigidity of the German war plan - another key area of blame. This brought Britain into the war, though not for the usually-cited 'honourable' reason of defending poor little Belgium. Whether Britain had decided to fight or not, however, the war would still have been a massive European conflict.Russia too often escapes its huge share of the responsibility. You make a reasonable argument that Austro-Hungary was 'entitled' to take action against Serbia because of the significance of the assassination - a point I also made above. If A-H had been let alone to settle matters with Serbia then it would indeed have been a local conflict and perhaps would have gone down in history as what you term a 'legitimate' war. But which country stopped that happening? Russia had no absolutely vital interests at stake. Its interest in defending Serbia was simple power politics aimed ultimately at weakening Austro-Hungary. Therefore Russia's aggressive actions cannot be justified in the same way and Its concealed mobilisation did most definitely force Germany's hand in the final stages of the crisis.

Interesting and detailed answers.

You focus on the crisis from the assassination in July 1914, but wouldn't you agree that this was just the trigger and that war was almost guaranteed to occur at some point. Any one of the Balkan crises in 1909, 1912 and 1913 could have led to war.

The British-French-Russian entente v. Germany-Austria alliance pitted the two massive power blocs against each other, they had been building up their armies and navies and ratcheting up pressure for the previous decade.

Thank you.

To that list, you could add the Morocco crisis of 1911. However, I would turn your argument on its head and argue that the very fact that Europe survived successive crises indicates that there was nothing inevitable about a general war. In each of these criticial periods the politicians pulled back from war; in 1914 they did not so I therefore look to that crisis for the key reasons. If transported back in time and faced with an essay title something like...

'"The division of Europe into two opposing armed camps/The military build-up/Both made a war such as that which broke out in 1914 inevitable/a matter of time." Discuss.'

then I would gleefully attack the concept of 'inevitability' or what was meant by 'a matter of time'. As well as pointing out the crises which did not lead to war, I would argue that an international political situation two massive, opposing power blocs, each building up their military capability, does not necessarily mean outright conflict, e.g. the Cold War. There would be other points, of course, but you get my drift.

I'm not dismissing your points out of hand, btw. For example, I believe that one of the key factors in driving Britain into the welcoming arms of the Franco-Russian Entente was the German naval expansion.

"One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans"

Bismarck, 1888

If we look at the alliances, what's interesting is some actually pressed Russia to stay out of it (Witte the former PM and finance minister argued on economic grounds that it would be disastrous) some also thought a German alliance more preferable, but the Russians generally disliked German culture and liked the French. What needs to be remembered is Russia was under pressure from the Ottomans as well who were always expanding into the Balkans. I think if Germany had not invaded Belgium it would have remained an Eastern regional conflict, but since the fear of naval expansion tipped the British it wasn't surprising a war broke out between the two eventually.

While various Serbian officials such as Apis (the head of military intelligence) and Tankositch were directly involved in the plot, there is no evidence that the Serbian government was. However, they knew about its existence and failed to make any real effort to prevent it.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by Germany 'getting involved and pulling everyone else in'.

Than why did the Serbian government rejected the A-H judical inquiry to investigate the plot in Serbia?

It is a mistake to assume that the Serb government and those working for it were following the same policies. Apis was extremely radical and was the organiser of the coup which murdered King Alexander in 1903. He also plotted against Prime Minister Pasic on several occasions - the last of them in spring 1914 when Pasic survived only when Russia and France let it be known that their support would only continue if he stayed in power. When Pasic discovered evidence of the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand, he arranged for a warning of sorts to be relayed to Vienna - albeit too oblique to be effective.

The rejection of the Austrian demands on the inquiry was partial. One point was accepted conditionally, but the demand for Austrian officials to take part in the inquiry was rejected outright because it was an infringement of Serbian sovereignty. The latter is a perfectly reasonable position; what is the point of being a country if you cannot govern your own affairs? The rest of the response was sufficently accepting that to many observers at the time it was thought to be more than enough to satisfy Vienna. It wasn't.

Letting an judical inquiry has nothing to do with a country governing its own affair what so ever. The judical inquiriry from Vienna was about to coperate with the Serbian one. Further more the perpetrators were about to be send to a Serbian court and get a trial in Serbia. So that was not any violation of Serbian souveregnity especially or do you think that the US violated Swiss souveregnity with the newest FIFA scandal?
The only who said at that time it was to much were Serbias Anglo-french allies who were biased against A-H.

For your first paragraph good that you mention that because Apis was the one who replaced the Obrenović dynasty (which was seen as weak by Serbian nationalists) with the new Karađorđević dynasty. S there is a clear connection between the Apis and his crew with the Serbian government.

I have to disagree with you on your first point. It is important to realise that this wasn't going to be a nice, friendly investigation in the context of both sides trying to come to a mutually-beneficial conclusion. This was part of an overt attempt by Austro-Hungary to emasculate Serbia as a political threat. The point about having to accept Austrian officials to oversee the investigation was that it would demonstrate Vienna's authority over another country's internal affairs. Austro-Hungary planned the demands to be unacceptable and therefore be rejected - at which point it would then proceed to military action.

It wasn't just the British and French who interpreted the demands in this way. The Russians also did, of course, but they were even stronger allies of Serbia - you probably just forgot to include them in your argument. Italy was the first country outside A-H to discover the nature of the demands. Its Foreign Minister, San Giuliano, stated that 'they show clearly that Austria wishes to provoke a war'. (Note that although Italy eventually fought on the Entente side, at this point it was allied with the Central Powers.) The Kaiser had been in favour of concrete, unambiguous demands being made of Serbia and when he finally saw the text of the ultimatum, he described it as 'a firm note after all', i.e. he had been expecting the Austrians to be weak but they hadn't.

I understand what you are trying to say regarding the US, Fifa and Switzerland, but I don't think the analogy is a good one. The US is not insisting that its officials take part in an internal Swiss inquiry. Rather, it is conducting its own investigation.