Was there a single country that truly deserved to be penalized for "starting" WW1?
What kind of question is that?
"deserve" is not something that weighs heavily in the anarchic arena of international relations.
>>1022503
They certainly felt that Germany "deserved" to be dismantled over it.
>>1022524
It wasn't so much the allies thought Germany "deserved" to be partitioned as it was nation-states acting in their self interest by dividing the power & wealth of their principle rival.
Moral judgements rarely come into the decision making process of international relations.
>>1022472
Germany
They turned some shitty conflict between Austria and Serbia into a world war
>>1022472
Canada. Think about it...
>>1022472
Austrians. They got completely ahead of themselves and their emperor was senile
>>1022472
The losers
>>1022472
Yes, Mexico.Fucking spicks
>>1022556
That's a pretty head-up-the-ass way of looking at it. Tight and complex alliances made Russian threat legitimate so Germans attacked preemptively. Not to say they didn't have their fair share of war crimes, but they didn't just up and start shootin people for world domination. It's naively dismissed to always resort to that.
>>1023184
dismissive*
>>1022472
>country
why
how about a government
austria / germany
maybe, but germany should not have taken on all of the penalization
>>1023184
>Russian """threat"""
Just like the country they love so much, Germaboos have forgotten to do their homework. Russia was already on the verge of revolution and heavily outpaced by every other modernized nation at the outset of WW1. And even if we do excuse the ridiculous German ignorance, they have NO excuse for the invasion of Luxembourg and Belgium.
>>1023379
>do their homework
>forgot that the original German doctrine before the breakout of hostilities was to be on the defensive against Russia due to their perceived power while being on the offensive against France
>>1023379
>Thinks that perception of relative threat in the past is the same as revisionist perception of threat
>>1023379
>The Germans should have known then what I know now
>>1022472
Yeah, Serbia.
>>1022472
The country that launched an all out invasion and occupation of a neutral country, as part of a preemptive attack on another country, knowing that another third country amd it's colonies would come to their aid.
>>1023379
>Germaboos have forgotten to do their homework
The irony
>>1022472
In this order:
Serbia
Austria
Russia
Germany
France
After France everyone else was dragged to the conflict.
>>1022955
THIS
>>1023507
>>1023563
Nope, the order looks like that:
>France
>Russia
>Serbia
>Montenegro
>Belgium
>Luxembourg
>Great Britain
>Siam
>Persia
>China
>Japan
>Saudis
>Ethiopia
>Turkey
>Romania
>Bulgaria
>Greece
>Italy
>Spain
>Portugal
>The US
>Canada
>Australia
>Brazil
>Peru
>Austria-Hungary
>Sweden
And maybe finally
>Germany
>>1022472
If you have to pick just one it should be Austria.
>>1023613
Nah. Germany is definitely tied with Russia, Serbia, and Austria-Hungary and they are all near the top.
Germany. Treaty of Versailles was too lenient
>>1023573
>Gavrilo Princip
>Serb
"I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be freed from Austria."
>>1023641
that worked well
>>1023504
>The Germans should have known then what I know now
>there were no warning signs about Russia's weakness, the russo-japanese war never happened!
>>1023430
>forgot that the original German doctrine before the breakout of hostilities was to be on the defensive against Russia due to their perceived power while being on the offensive against France
???
How is calling them out for being fucking retarded for perceiving a threat from Russia forgetting they feared Russia so they decided to invade France?
Serbia and Austria-Hungary, everyone else was just dragged in due to these two being faggots and trying to bluff eachother
>>1022472
Yeah! fucking England!
>>1023714
>so they decided to invade France?
doctrine was to defeat France then turn their full attention to Russia. The assumption was that they'd be on the defensive up until the units in the west would be freed up and re-located East. The fear was the large numbers of Russians would overwhelm them.
>>1022472
Yes. Israel.
>>1023706
>major land power that never had a predominant naval history looses war that is far away and mainly naval in nature
>that means their large army right next to Europe is just as bad and doesn't pose a threat
>>1023743
Don't forget that Nikolai and Wilhem were cousins and tried to stop the war up till the official declaration.
>>1023743
>doctrine was to defeat France then turn their full attention to Russia.
And they, of course, decided the best way to do this was to involve another major European power in the war against them.
Absolutely brilliant, German ingenuity at its finest.
>>1023753
>major land power
When?
>>1023764
Mid 1800's onwards
>what is Crimean war
I mean, Germany and Austria moreso than France and the UK sure.
But the international context gets ignored a lot when discussing ww1. The older, and economically less dynamic colonial powers had already carved up basically the entire goddamned planet. Germany and the US were the two industrial powers really coming into their own late 19th century/early 20th and one of them had a shitload of land and resources. The other was pretty thoroughly hemmed in and couldn't find much more than scraps to expend its colonial energies on.
It's not making excuses for Deutsch foreign policy to suggest that the logic of the global economy/how capitalism was developing made some sort of conflict nigh-inevitable.
Europe was a goddamned powder keg and every side was engaged in the great arms race.
>>1023769
>what is Crimean war
...A Russian loss?
>>1023784
>Russia being checked in one area constitutes it not growing
since the decline of the Ottoman Empire Russia had been increasing its powers in the Balkans and was even looking into getting access into the Mediterranean. This upset the French and Brits so they attacked and at least successfully stopped Russia from gaining access to the Mediterranean.
The war was a loss for Russia, but it underscored the increase in power it was experiencing.
>>1023781
>Germany
Again, why? All they did is support their allies, Austria, just as Russia supported their ally Serbia and UK and France their ally Russia.
>>1023798
>All they did is support their allies
>The invasions of Belgium and Luxembourg never happened
Kill yourself Germaboo
Would the Schlieffen Plan have worked if German commanders had followed to the letter?
>>1023808
>war already underway
>decide to invade neutrals to try and shorten it
>get blamed for entire war
Lemme put it this way: you have brain cancer which spreads to your lungs and eventually your lungs fail first and you die. Which one is to blame for starting your condition?
>>1023821
>war already underway
I, too, remember Britain's shocking and unfair declaration of war against Germany for absolutely no reason whatsoever, followed later by their partners in crime Japan and the USA.
Poor, poor Germany.
>>1023830
So you're saying war did't start with Austrian declaration of war to Serbia, but only with German declaration of war to Belgium? Perhaps in that case we should also consider Britain and France responsible for WW2, seeing as original belligerents don't matter, just the countries that get dragged in due to their alliances and guarantees
>>1023845
Austria started a war through their declaration of war against Serbia, yes. But Germany started a World War, and should be held responsible.
>>1023851
UK decided to act upon it, you could argue they started the world war. Or Russia when they warred Austria. You're just making excuses to blame germany.
Think just for a fucking second, Austria declares war to Serbia cause they're obstructing the investigation of assassination of their heir, Russia plays though guy and wars Austria, only then Germany steps in and defends their ally, to which France responds by warring Germany. Now they're forced to fight on two fronts so they look to shorten the war and go through Belgium.
Also: UK was just looking for an excuse, they'd jump in sooner or later, war became world war when France was pulled in. Also don't forget they wanted to take Alzase-Lorraine back.
>>1023810
>Absurdly tight schedule
>Assume victory comically quickly
>No consideration for other forces
I dunno Anon you tell me
>>1023867
>You're just making excuses to blame germany.
That's adorable coming from the Germaboo making as many excuses as possible to absolve Germany of blame. Are you really going to sit here and argue it was justified for Germany to invade two completely neutral nations just because they were idiots who believed the Schlieffen plan would actually work? Really?
>>1023882
Yes. Are you just gonna continue making baseless assumptions about myself while providing no counter arguments or actually support your claim?
Fact: they didn't start the war
Fact: they went into a defensive war after a world power (Russia) threatened their ally
Fact: France declared war on them partly due to them wanting revenge for franco-prussian war
Also about schlieffen plan: hindsight is always 20/20
>>1023892
>Fact: they went into a defensive war
Funny how this "defensive war" was punctuated by invasions of two neutral countries as well as their enemies. Yes, Germany is such a peace-loving, innocent nation they just HAPPENED to fight the entire """"defensive"""" war on their enemy's turf.
Don't kid yourself. The Germans were itching for war, and they made it larger in scope than it ever would have been.
>>1023909
German warcrimes in Belgium are well documented and the winning powers were right to impose war reparations, but to claim they started world war and hold them solely responsible is idiotic. Also, you do realize you're allowed to take offensive action during defensive war, right?
>germans were itching for war
Their monarch tried to stop and later contain the war, and believe me France and Britain were also itching for war. France cause of the shame after franco-prussian war and Britain cause they didn't want germany to become the new leader in mainland europe instead of their butt-buddy france.
>>1023706
Russia in 1917 was nothing like Russia in 1914. In 1914 Russia was rapidly modernising and within the next 5 years, without a war they would have been too strong for Germany to counter. The reason for going to war in 1914 was because it was the last point where the Central Powers had more than a cat in hell's chance of winning. Germany had already given up trying to match the Royal Navy and Russia was only getting stronger.
>>1022472
The Eternal Austro
>>1023922
>Britain were also itching for war
No. before the invasion of Belgium there was a better than even chance of Britain sitting the war out. France had no choice but to declare war on Germany because of their pact with Russia.
>>1023934
No way. Britain and France had pretty close ties at the time and they both viewed Germany as a threat to "old world order". They'd enter the war 100% it's just the matter of when, don't forget that Germany did want the redistribution of colonies and it was in Britain's interest to curbstomp the growing power.
>>1023948
>Britain and France had pretty close ties at the time and they both viewed Germany as a threat to "old world order"
Not at all. Britain, like Germany, saw Russia as the growing threat and Britain sided with the Entente powers so that the UK could continue to act as a counter-balance. Before the invasion of Belgium Parliament was leaning towards neutrality more than anything. There was obviously a strong hawkish element but it was by no means a majority before Belgium.
Why didn't Germany go through Switzerland to flank the French forces after both sides dug in? They clearly didn't have a problem with betraying neutrality
Germany essentially escalated the war with the whole "blank cheque" fiasco. Anyone who says otherwise needs to pick up a god damn book.
>>1023988
If you are seriously suggesting this I would love to show you how badly this would have been.
>>1024012
Please do. I don't really know much about it which is why I asked the question
>>1024023
Look at the fighting between Italy and Austria, that is more than adequate to show you how stupid invading a country that is surrounded by an entire ring of mountains is.
>>1024040
Oh right. I assumed it had something to do with the geography
Germany
>>1023573
>>1023563
France was dragged in when Germany attacked them
Britain on the other hand involved themselves willingly
>>1024275
>Britain on the other hand involved themselves willingly
to honour a treaty with Belgium
Everyone was gagging for a dust up for one reason or another, so if a country ended up in the war they only have themselves to blame (except maybe Belgium etc.)
Or you could just say it was Germany's fault because they lost, and what are they going to do about it, start another war?
>>1022556
Except for the part where Russia has been meddling at the Balkans well before that and was in no position to back Serbia, which was located in the vicinity of Austria-Hungary, and France has been backing them in their imperialistic endeavours.
Wars don't start with their declaration, they take place in a historical context.
>>1024308
well apparently germany invading and committing atrocities against a neutral country was completely fine because they needed to do it in order to get to france
but Britain honoring an old treaty was just them being horrible warmongers who wanted to pick on the poor innocent germans
>>1023928
>Germany had already given up trying to match the Royal Navy
Germany never tried to match the Royal Navy. Germany never aimed to have more than 2/3rd of the Royal Navy's strength. It was the British Empire that had a policy which said that the Royal Navy had to be two times as powerful as the two largest continental fleets.
I don't get why the German attempt to build a competitive fleet that could defend them in the time of need - not even a fleet capable of overpowering Britain - is seen as an example of German militarism.
>>1024275
>willingly
Willingly to prevent there being a continental hegemon which could threaten the UK, rather like Napoleonic France had done.
>>1024343
and to stop the german war crimes, don't forget that one
sure you may say its a convenient excuse and sure you may say the war was exactly what they needed but fact still remains that one country was committing all sorts of atrocities and another was aiming to stop said country
>>1024319
>Everyone was gagging for a dust up for one reason or another
but that's just not true
the levels of wanting war were vastly different
and indeed as far as those in power, i.e. governments are concerned
some did not want war at all
the 'sleepwalking' or 'slithering' into war approach has been knocked out in post60s historical research consensus
there is literally no way to view, say, the behavior and actions of germany as the same as or anywhere close to those of france in the months leading up to ww1
>>1024275
>France was dragged in when Germany attacked them
France wasn't "dragged in". France knew very well what they were getting into since they continued to back the Russian ambitions at the Balkans. They knew that this could lead to war and they were willing to take it to that point - just like Russia and Germany.
Britain however, is an innocent party - well, at least partially, since they did have naval agreements with Russia to back them if it came to Baltic landing operations. This is something Germany knew of since they had a spy in the Russian embassy, which only further alienated Germany and completed their fear of encirclement, making Bethmann-Hollweg give in to the military's demands to strike before the others - who were out to get Germany anyway - would have assembled a force they would not be able to defend against.
>>1024353
the french certainly backed up their allies russia with regard to the austria/serbia/russia tensions - but they had not done so with the view of a conflict with germany
in fact, their actions as the july crisis escalated further show that particular scenario was something they were not prepared for, something they dreaded and something they explicitly tried to avoid
>>1024377
Poitcaré declared that France would honour their alliances if it came to war.
>>1024353
>Britain however, is an innocent party
It really depends on your concept of blame, in terms of great power governments in Europe the only nation with a stable foreign ministry was Britain, so in a sense it was the only nation with a free hand.
Edward Grey's decision to fill in for Russia in the Franco-Russian alliance after Russia got BTFO by Japan, in this sense, was instrumental to the hardening of alliance blocs prior to 1914.
That's quite a long term cause though, in the short term it's a bit more complex.
>>1024435
>the only nation with a stable foreign ministry was Britain
How was it stable in comparison to its European counterparts?
>>1022472
Yes. Serbia.
>>1024454
The French political system at the time was an unstable joke, and every other great power's foreign ministry relied on individuals who benefitted more from pleasing their leadership than from creating a coherent long term diplomatic strategy.
Edward Grey's plan to substitute Russia in an alliance that was initially targeted at Britain could have been a stroke of diplomatic genius, but the July crisis really put a bullet in that.
>>1023379
Are you not aware of the role Germany, via Nicholas Hartwig (a massive Serbophile) played in fanning the flames of pan-Slavist SERBIA STRONK thought in the Serbian government? Fuck, after Ferdinand was assassinated Hartwig was the one going on about "SERBIA STRONK" and having them reject Austria's ultimatum which they were about to capitulate to.
>>1023573
>>1024070
It's really a shame that Ferdinand was killed due to dumb luck. The entire assassination is a comedy of errors on both sides. My favorite part is the initial assassin, whose bomb bounced off the car, decided to kill himself by taking cyanide and jumping in a river. Except the cyanide wasn't any good and "river" was only like a few inches deep when he jumped off a bridge so the only thing he did was put himself in extreme pain.
>>1024521
>put himself in extreme pain.
for Yu
>>1022472
who's responsible for ww1?
>muh Balkan
>muh assasination
>muh tsarist russia
The whole 19th century must be well-known in order to know the truth.
There is not a "single country" that can be held responsible.
Or you can penalize France... for breeding Napoleon III i guess?
Or even Napoleon Bonaparte for giving us Napoleon III?
The murder of a prince causes a brutal war, how romantic.
Unfortunetly no ones that popular.
- Robert Newman
>>1024649
No, Russian mobilization would take several weeks. It was ordered on July 30, and the Germans declared war on August 1.
The Germans were actively looking for a war with Russia. By accident, the Russians were given two sets of notes by the Germans. They were follow ups to the Russians' response to the ultimatum given by Germany. Guess what, both meant war. As in even if the Russians decided to accept the ultimatum, the Germans (would) have responded with a declaration of war.
>>1024649
Mobilised does not mean "poised to attack". You need to be mobilised to defend effectively after all.
Poland wanted to mobilise before being invaded in 1939 but France and Britain made them stop until literally August 31 in order to not provoke Germany.
That went great.
>>1024351
>the 'sleepwalking' or 'slithering' into war approach has been knocked out in post60s historical research consensus
And it was brought up again by Christopher Clark in his work "Sleepwalkers".
>>1024713
Brought up again perhaps but not really brought alive, Clark's scope is German-centric to the extreme - which is not a problem in and of itself, but it is a problem when these extremes affect his work negatively. I mean at times and he outright ignores or misinterprets evidence contrary to the picture he is trying to paint! Like his handling of the 1912 German war council, where Clark basically goes "and nothing of note regarding a future war happened at all"... except the records from the people literally mention desire for war in the immediate future.
>>1024741
>Clark's scope is German-centric to the extreme
On the contrary: Clark worked comparatively and he had a greater array of sources than most others who dealt with the subject, e.g. Fischer who came up with the idea of the whole thing being Germany's fault but who almost exclusively relied on German sources. Clark essentially set a new standard.
>>1024343
>rather like Napoleonic France had done.
That's a rather bad exemple
Napoleonic France was nothing when the UK first attacked it in 1803
It's through beating British-funded coalitions in self-defense that they ended up conquering Europe
>>1024409
But in the end, no one know if it was true
Two days after Germany had declared war on Russia, France still hadnt reacted and Germany, tired of waiting, was forced to declare war on them themselves in order to get the big war they wanted
>>1024745
"German-centric" in his focus (and bias), obviously not in the sources used, seeing as he certainly did not set a new standard since going across the archives of all the sides involved has been a thing for about half a century now.
>>1024409
again, not with the view of a war with germany
which, like i said, they literally tried to avoid quite a lot, even or rather especially at a time when it was obvious germany was involved the austria/serbia/russia mixup
>>1024783
He had taken a look at the greater picture and reached the conclusion that the other powers - primarily France and Russia - were no innocent victims of German aggression but players with their own agendas and interests they were willing to go to war to, opposed to wading through archives in order to find evidence that would blame Germany, like Fischer did.
>>1024782
>>1024787
France confirmed Russia that they'd have their backs if it came to war. This is occasionally regarded as another carte blanche - the equivalent of what Germany did in regards to Austria.
The idea that France wasn't willing to go to war over their interests is ridiculous. They knew perfectly well what they were dealing with. They even knew about plans Germany made in regards to pre-emptive wars and they were well aware that Germany was politically isolated.
>>1023867
>Austria declares war to Serbia cause they're obstructing the investigation of assassination of their heir
>people on a "history" board believe this shit
Austria's demands on Serbia ranged from dismissing all public officials the Austrians didn't like to control over school textbooks to letting Austrian officials and police run around freely in Serbia, supposedly to suppress "subversive movements". In other words, a good way towards annexation.
Austria knew very well these terms would e rejected. They were just looking for a casus belli, any excuse to go to war.
>>1022472
Serbia. It's all Serbias fault.
>>1024335
>atrocities
>franc-tieurs were good boys, dindu nuffin
>>1024857
How dare they resist invasion and brutal occupation.
>>1024838
And the one part Serbia refused was allowing an Austrian investigation.
>>1023909
You do know that if Germany hadn't invade Belgium, the UK would have used it to move troops into Germany itself
>>1024342
>Germany never tried to match the Royal Navy.
That was meant to say 'match the Royal Navy in the North Sea'. Germany's fleet was explicitly designed to challenge the Grand Fleet in the North Sea.
>>1024863
The brutal occupation came after they started shooting at Germans, Tommy. I'm sure your BBC documentaries never went into how the Germans legitimately tried to just pass through
>>1024887
>army just passing through a foreign country without permission
>legitimately
>>1024891
There is a difference between invading and "ooga Boogaloo, let's play kick the baby and boil the nun alive"
>>1024902
Neither is legitimate.
>>1024906
Forgive me, I meant legitimately not in a legal sense, but as in "the Germans actually just tried to walk through."
>>1024902
German mobilisation instructions literally advised their soldiers to violate the Hague convention sempai (e.g. taking civilian hostages).
>>1024913
*Of course such is the weight of German delusion and circular logic that many will say the war crimes were planned and conducted preemptively, as the Belgians would have given pretext for them anyway so why wait for it.
>>1024880
It was meant to be exactly what I said: a fleet large enough to make people think twice about attacking. Tirpitz called it a "risk fleet". It was never meant to pose an actual threat on the offence.
Austria wasn't really going to annex Serbia right? Couldn't Russia simply wait for the conflict to start (Serbia was going to crush A-H at the beginning anyway) and then simply force either a statu quo ante bellum or some minor territorial gains for the Habsburgs? Imho Russia backing Serbia is as bad as the famous german blank check.
>>1022472
serbia
>>1025883
>Serbia was going to crush A-H at the beginning anywa
>implying
A-H was shitty but it was a shitty great power.
>>1023909
>The Germans were itching for war
>"Upon the news of the bombardment [of Belgrade by Austria] reaching the capitals of the world, the Germans urged Austria to occupy Belgrade and then begin talks once more."
>"The Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, and the Kaiser were trying to backpedal as fast as they could."
From Stokesbury's Short History.
>>1022556
Using that logic you can say the same thing about ww2 that france and england turned some conflict between germany and poland into a world war
>>1023379
ya they wanted to attack russia before it caught up in industry
>>1022472
serbs
>>1028205
They did
>>1024816
>The idea that France wasn't willing to go to war over their interests is ridiculous.
no, the idea that france wanted a war with germany during the july crisis is ridiculous
they literally pulled troops away from their borders, they literally did not allow the military to mobilize early, they literally told russia not to do anything that would result in a german declaration of war
>>1027589
is that the same bethman hollweg who censored or outright withheld messages from wilhelm to austria that asked the austrians not to fuel the flames of war further? and whose "reluctance" was not about going to war, but about goading russia into it first?
although to be fair he was trying to avoid the whole thing becoming a war with britain as well
>>1028812
And yet they could not guarantee their neutrality. France was as tied to war by treaty as Germany.
>>1028878
"having a treaty" and "actively pushing for war" are two different things
>>1022472
The last thing WW1 was was premeditated. It's the knee-jerks of all knee-jerks.
Whoever was at fault could probably barter it down and score a plea deal for manslaughter.
>>1028887
France confirmed to Russia that they would honour their alliances if it came to war, i.e. confirming them in their direction. You could interpret that as "pushing for war" as well.
The point remains that neither France nor Russia are innocent parties here. They were playing with fire and then acted all surprised when things blew up around them.
