The causes of WWI and WWII

[Rich Oliver]

In theory it should be unnecessary to discuss the causes of WWII, while discussing the causes of WWI. However in practice our knowledge of what came after feeds back into our view of WWI. So I feel its better to be explicit about this from the start.

Just because one thinks that Germany and Austria were the great power victims of the summer of 1914, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good thing to stop Hitler. My view is that Britain and France got their diplomacy with Hitler pretty spot on. I think it was the right thing to allow the annexation of the Sudetenland, but to respond militarily when Germany invaded rCheckolovakia. Just because the military implementation was so inept doesn't negate the correctness of the diplomacy.

I believe the so called consensus view on the causes of the First World War sufferers from two fundamental, even methodological errors.

1 The desire to project a simple moral narrative back into history. Trained and qualified historians are not immune to these psychological biases. Hitler and hence Germany must not be allowed any legitimate grievance. Because of the disastrous defeats the allies suffered, there is a desire to invalidate and delegitimise the appeasement diplomacy of the 1930's by projecting back into history the myth of the (exceptionalist) militarist German culture.

2 Seeing the First World War as some sort of mistake, some sort of abnormality. I feel it was the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s that were unusual or abnormal. The violence was abnormally limited and contained. There was virtually no danger of the Yugoslav conflicts spilling over into general war between the major powers. With Syria the disputes with China and the crisis over North Korea, we are seeing a return to the normal, extremely nasty and extremely dangerous conflicts of a multipolar world.

In 1914 Russia, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empires were not durable. When they broke up it was almost certainly not going to be pretty. Extremely nasty ethnic conflicts, drawing in great powers into proxy wars, threatening at any point to break out into full great power wars were almost inevitable. The international system in 1914 was fundamentally unstable. Some how an absurd myth has taken hold that some how the First World War ended a century of peace.

 

[Yakman]

unfortunately, your theory doesn't make sense - the Russian, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian Empires may not have been durable, but none of them started the wars either...

 

[Eusebio]

WWI: evil Germans
WWII: somehow even more evil Germans

 

[LatinKaiser]

This is the best examination of the causes of the First World War I have ever come across:

 

[keynes2.0]

1 The desire to project a simple mor al narrative back into history. Trained and qualified historians are not immune to these psychological biases. Hitler and hence Germany must not be allowed any legitimate grievance.

I'm pretty sure you have this backwards. Not only do people love to do this, but there is a decided lack of interest in the obvious history.

What is the cause of all this disagreement among the experts over basic historical issues? Economic factors. If you`re a historian and you want to write a best-selling book, you have to come up with a new wrinkle.

If you go to a publisher and say you want to write that Harry Truman was a blunt-spoken Missourian who made some unpopular decisions but was vindicated by history, the publisher will pick you up by your neck and toss you into the street, because there are already bales of such books on the market.

But if you claim to have uncovered evidence that Harry Truman was a Soviet ballerina, before long you`ll be on national morning television, answering earnest questions from David Hartman in a simulated living room.

Now the word of a comedian is hardly evidence but I think it's a good summary of a frustration that is expressed by historians as well as experts in other fields. They get in debates about shades of gray within their fields but those debates are being done for people well studied, who share a common frame of reference. But to someone outside their field, the common frame of reference isn't obvious. So to outsiders completely and utter incoherent nonsense like the Dunkirk halt order or the civil war was about states rights can appear legitimate. That means that the occasional fringe kook gets a massively inflated voice compared to the bulk of history. Just look at the "controversies" over climate change or evolution.

The causes of WWI aren't quite as simple as the civil war or operation dynamo but there are still some very simple facts that are overwhelmingly important. Some of the great powers were actively trying to avoid war and offered substantial concessions. Other great powers were actively trying to start the war for and saw the July Crisis as an opportunity. Before getting into any shades of gray, that needs to be remembered. The question "What caused WWI" has the same answer as the question "Why were Germany and Austria eager to start a war with France and Russia?"

 

[LatinKaiser]

I'm pretty sure you have this backwards. Not only do people love to do this, but there is a decided lack of interest in the obvious history.



Now the word of a comedian is hardly evidence but I think it's a good summary of a frustration that is expressed by historians as well as experts in other fields. They get in debates about shades of gray within their fields but those debates are being done for people well studied, who share a common frame of reference. But to someone outside their field, the common frame of reference isn't obvious. So to outsiders completely and utter incoherent nonsense like the Dunkirk halt order or the civil war was about states rights can appear legitimate. That means that the occasional fringe kook gets a massively inflated voice compared to the bulk of history. Just look at the "controversies" over climate change or evolution.

The causes of WWI aren't quite as simple as the civil war or operation dynamo but there are still some very simple facts that are overwhelmingly important. Some of the great powers were actively trying to avoid war and offered substantial concessions. Other great powers were actively trying to start the war for and saw the July Crisis as an opportunity. Before getting into any shades of gray, that needs to be remembered. The question "What caused WWI" has the same answer as the question "Why were Germany and Austria eager to start a war with France and Russia?"

The European powers (specifically Germany, Austria, Russia, and France) went from trying to avoid a war to frantically trying to start a war before the other side could steal the initiative. Furthermore, the Germans were worried that Russian infrastructural development would eventually allow Russia to mobilize as fast as them.

Oh, and each country had internal disagreements between hawkish and dovish factions that hindered coordination and execution.

 

[Avernite]

WW1 and WW2 were caused by noone knowing how to fit Germany into the balance of power of Europe and the world (well ok, maybe Bismarck had a clue, but certainly not enough of one to solve it permanently).

WW2 settled the matter by making the balance of power among the European states irrelevant, and by giving everyone half a century of threatened nuclear war to cool off in, which resulted in things like NATO and the EU.

Mind, most history of Europe consists of people not knowing what to do with eachother, hence the frequent wars.

 

[DukeDayve]

I've heard lots of theories and reasons for why WWI started. None of them make any god damned sense to me. I've watched countless documentaries and the more I watch, the more I read, the more it doesn't make sense. Most pointless war in all of history. At any point from the beginning of 1916 onwards each of the major powers could have simply said "Yeah, this is ridiculous, let's just pack up and go home" and they ALL would've been better off for it, but instead they all continued psychotically murdering each other for no real reason, with no real goal, and they all went bankrupt and wiped out a generation... and paved the way for another generation (or two) to be wiped out again 20 years later.

Oh well, that's humans for ya.

 

[LatinKaiser]

I've heard lots of theories and reasons for why WWI started. None of them make any god damned sense to me. I've watched countless documentaries and the more I watch, the more I read, the more it doesn't make sense. Most pointless war in all of history. At any point from the beginning of 1916 onwards each of the major powers could have simply said "Yeah, this is ridiculous, let's just pack up and go home" and they ALL would've been better off for it, but instead they all continued psychotically murdering each other for no real reason, with no real goal, and they all went bankrupt and wiped out a generation... and paved the way for another generation (or two) to be wiped out again 20 years later.

Oh well, that's humans for ya.

Each side wanted to negotiate from a position of strength, and even once they were in such a position, they thought, “Why not just keep going, if we’re already winning?”

Also, they didn’t want to deal with the domestic repercussions of a loss.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Each side wanted to negotiate from a position of strength, and even once they were in such a position, they thought, “Why not just keep going, if we’re already winning?”

Also, they didn’t want to deal with the domestic repercussions of a loss.

Yes. The clocks started ticking. Mobilization was a highly organized train schedule. The trains must run on time, you can't disrupt the schedule; it would be an act of treason and a stain upon your honor. The war is comparable to an industrial meat grinder.

 

[Arilou]

The European powers (specifically Germany, Austria, Russia, and France) went from trying to avoid a war to frantically trying to start a war before the other side could steal the initiative. Furthermore, the Germans were worried that Russian infrastructural development would eventually allow Russia to mobilize as fast as them.

Oh, and each country had internal disagreements between hawkish and dovish factions that hindered coordination and execution.

The issue is that mobilization had been done before, and it had not lead to war. Mobilizing was clearly ratcheting up the tensions, but it was not tantamount to declaring war. (and no one except the germans thought so)

 

[Arilou]

1 The desire to project a simple moral narrative back into history. Trained and qualified historians are not immune to these psychological biases. Hitler and hence Germany must not be allowed any legitimate grievance. Because of the disastrous defeats the allies suffered, there is a desire to invalidate and delegitimise the appeasement diplomacy of the 1930's by projecting back into history the myth of the (exceptionalist) militarist German culture.

This is not just back-projecting: Germany was seen as militaristic by contemporaries (including germans themselves, be they in favour of, or against it) now, whether or not that is true or not is a different matter (the German army certainly had more of a direct influence in politics than it did in Britain or France, though) but it is not a back-projection, it was a widespread contemporary view at the time (and not neccessarily an altogether negative one, from conservatives)

2 Seeing the First World War as some sort of mistake, some sort of abnormality. I feel it was the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s that were unusual or abnormal. The violence was abnormally limited and contained. There was virtually no danger of the Yugoslav conflicts spilling over into general war between the major powers. With Syria the disputes with China and the crisis over North Korea, we are seeing a return to the normal, extremely nasty and extremely dangerous conflicts of a multipolar world.

If anything, that tends to be the view of the "Things just got out of hand" and "It's no one's fault really" schools.

In 1914 Russia, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empires were not durable. When they broke up it was almost certainly not going to be pretty. Extremely nasty ethnic conflicts, drawing in great powers into proxy wars, threatening at any point to break out into full great power wars were almost inevitable. The international system in 1914 was fundamentally unstable. Some how an absurd myth has taken hold that some how the First World War ended a century of peace.

The system was unstable, but then again, most systems are. The instability of the system does not mean attempting to overturn it is less of a destabilizing act. (if anything moreso)

Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans might have survived... Or they might not have. Or they might have survived in a different form (like Russia did) and at least the Ottomans actually showed much greater resilience and capability than anyone expected: Not enough to survive four years of total war, but then again, only Italy, the UK and France did that. (and all of them were pretty scarred from it)

 

[keynes2.0]

The European powers (specifically Germany, Austria, Russia, and France) went from trying to avoid a war to frantically trying to start a war

Russia: Told Serbia to accept the Austrian demands and was okay with any Austrian victory so long as the Austrians did it without war.
France: Was okay with outright war on Serbia so long as they didn't declare war on Russia as well.

This is not frantically trying to start a war. What you are saying is simply factually inaccurate. I just dont understand how people can keep discussing history round and round in circles and not give a damn about actually updating their views as new information comes in.

 

[bz249]

Russia: Told Serbia to accept the Austrian demands and was okay with any Austrian victory so long as the Austrians did it without war.
France: Was okay with outright war on Serbia so long as they didn't declare war on Russia as well.

This is not frantically trying to start a war. What you are saying is simply factually inaccurate. I just dont understand how people can keep discussing history round and round in circles and not give a damn about actually updating their views as new information comes in.

Well Moltke wanted his war because he feared that in a few years Germany had no chance... Could it be that the French/Russian general staff calculated similarly, thus they would have preffered to wait it out?

 

[George Parr]

Russia: Told Serbia to accept the Austrian demands and was okay with any Austrian victory so long as the Austrians did it without war.
France: Was okay with outright war on Serbia so long as they didn't declare war on Russia as well.

This is not frantically trying to start a war. What you are saying is simply factually inaccurate. I just dont understand how people can keep discussing history round and round in circles and not give a damn about actually updating their views as new information comes in.

Nice you you twist things around to make them appear completely different than they actually were...

France most definately had an interest in war. If it hadn't been for Poincare travelling to Russia to push a rather hesitant Tsar, things wouldn't have escalated.
Stating that France would have been fine with an Austrian war against Serbia as long as there wouldn't be one against Russia is completely useless. A war against Serbia would automatically cause a war with Russia. The idea of a limited strike to punish Serbia, followed by an Austrian retreat into its own territory went out of the window pretty early on, especially once France told Russia not to back down. It's funny how Germany always gets the blame for backing Austria-Hungary, yet France going even a tiny bit further than that gets completely ignored.

All big nations had some elements interested in starting a war, and some elements that thought it would go horribly wrong if attempted. In all cases the "doves" weren't strong enough to push their view, or ended up accepting war after getting told it was now impossible to stop things (which wasn't really the case). All big powers had the chance to prevent this mess from happening, and none of them bothered to do so. They were all to blame, to state otherwise is simply false and an attempt to whitewash the history of some of the nations.

 

[bz249]

Nice you you twist things around to make them appear completely different than they actually were...

France most definately had an interest in war. If it hadn't been for Poincare travelling to Russia to push a rather hesitant Tsar, things wouldn't have escalated.
Stating that France would have been fine with an Austrian war against Serbia as long as there wouldn't be one against Russia is completely useless. A war against Serbia would automatically cause a war with Russia. The idea of a limited strike to punish Serbia, followed by an Austrian retreat into its own territory went out of the window pretty early on, especially once France told Russia not to back down. It's funny how Germany always gets the blame for backing Austria-Hungary, yet France going even a tiny bit further than that gets completely ignored.

All big nations had some elements interested in starting a war, and some elements that thought it would go horribly wrong if attempted. In all cases the "doves" weren't strong enough to push their view, or ended up accepting war after getting told it was now impossible to stop things (which wasn't really the case). All big powers had the chance to prevent this mess from happening, and none of them bothered to do so. They were all to blame, to state otherwise is simply false and an attempt to whitewash the history of some of the nations.

Though the German General Staff had a disproportionate part of it, because they ignored Clausewitz (warfare is politics by other means) they have no endgoal and they lacked the exit strategy. There was no way for a negotiated peace, because they come up with their proposals* in September, and those proposal could only work in case of a decisive victory on the battlefield.

*if this one is really the wargoal not just some wanking by some circles of the government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

 

[DoomBunny]

In theory it should be unnecessary to discuss the causes of WWII, while discussing the causes of WWI. However in practice our knowledge of what came after feeds back into our view of WWI. So I feel its better to be explicit about this from the start.

Just because one thinks that Germany and Austria were the great power victims of the summer of 1914, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good thing to stop Hitler. My view is that Britain and France got their diplomacy with Hitler pretty spot on. I think it was the right thing to allow the annexation of the Sudetenland, but to respond militarily when Germany invaded rCheckolovakia. Just because the military implementation was so inept doesn't negate the correctness of the diplomacy.

I believe the so called consensus view on the causes of the First World War sufferers from two fundamental, even methodological errors.

1 The desire to project a simple moral narrative back into history. Trained and qualified historians are not immune to these psychological biases. Hitler and hence Germany must not be allowed any legitimate grievance. Because of the disastrous defeats the allies suffered, there is a desire to invalidate and delegitimise the appeasement diplomacy of the 1930's by projecting back into history the myth of the (exceptionalist) militarist German culture.

2 Seeing the First World War as some sort of mistake, some sort of abnormality. I feel it was the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s that were unusual or abnormal. The violence was abnormally limited and contained. There was virtually no danger of the Yugoslav conflicts spilling over into general war between the major powers. With Syria the disputes with China and the crisis over North Korea, we are seeing a return to the normal, extremely nasty and extremely dangerous conflicts of a multipolar world.

In 1914 Russia, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empires were not durable. When they broke up it was almost certainly not going to be pretty. Extremely nasty ethnic conflicts, drawing in great powers into proxy wars, threatening at any point to break out into full great power wars were almost inevitable. The international system in 1914 was fundamentally unstable. Some how an absurd myth has taken hold that some how the First World War ended a century of peace.

Have you actually read anything about the outbreak of the First World War, or are you just making things up based on the odd forum post?

unfortunately, your theory doesn't make sense - the Russian, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian Empires may not have been durable, but none of them started the wars either...

The Austro-Hungarians kinda did.

WWI: evil Germans
WWII: somehow even more evil Germans

The better summary is perhaps that the First World War was ambitious, slightly foolhardy, and extremely personally unaware Germans. A direct comparison to Hitler's regime isn't really sustainable in my opinion, though one can certainly draw some developmental connections between German policy in the East, the threads of German nationalism, etc...

The European powers (specifically Germany, Austria, Russia, and France) went from trying to avoid a war to frantically trying to start a war before the other side could steal the initiative. Furthermore, the Germans were worried that Russian infrastructural development would eventually allow Russia to mobilize as fast as them.

Oh, and each country had internal disagreements between hawkish and dovish factions that hindered coordination and execution.

This really isn't true. Germany and Austria-Hungary were either pushing for war, or pushing their luck, depending on the interpretation. Russia was not actively pushing for war, and everyone else was really just sitting there waiting to see what these three powers did.

Yes. The clocks started ticking. Mobilization was a highly organized train schedule. The trains must run on time, you can't disrupt the schedule; it would be an act of treason and a stain upon your honor. The war is comparable to an industrial meat grinder.

Russia was the first power to mobilize, and only did so after Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia, at that point the only thing that could have stopped a war was a Russian about face, accompanied by shameful retreat. The problem with blaming chronological issues is also that the Central Powers thought process was clearly a calculated one, at least on the Austro-Hungarian end. One can debate what Germany really expected when it gave Austria-Hungary its full backing; it is not unreasonable to suggest that what was really meant was that Austria-Hungary should strike whilst the iron was hot and win a diplomatic victory. However, the same cannot be said of Austria-Hungary herself, who clearly embarked on a process of forcing a war with Serbia, after substantial premeditation.

Nice you you twist things around to make them appear completely different than they actually were...

France most definately had an interest in war. If it hadn't been for Poincare travelling to Russia to push a rather hesitant Tsar, things wouldn't have escalated.

This is nonsense. The French were on their way home when the Austrians issued their ultimatum; indeed, this would seem to be a deliberate decision on the Austrian part, with the intention of muddling French responses and exploiting this to win a diplomatic victory.

Stating that France would have been fine with an Austrian war against Serbia as long as there wouldn't be one against Russia is completely useless. A war against Serbia would automatically cause a war with Russia. The idea of a limited strike to punish Serbia, followed by an Austrian retreat into its own territory went out of the window pretty early on, especially once France told Russia not to back down. It's funny how Germany always gets the blame for backing Austria-Hungary, yet France going even a tiny bit further than that gets completely ignored.

A war against Serbia would not automatically cause a war with Russia, however, Russia was certainly likely to back Serbia, and up against a wall if she did not. The French role in this is essentially limited to telling Russia that if war broke out, she would back her; that is the bare minimum to be expected of an ally, and the only course open to the French, as any other would have meant German domination of France.

Meanwhile, Germany actively pushed Austria-Hungary onwards; not necessarily looking for war, but certainly looking to exploit the crisis to its full.

All big nations had some elements interested in starting a war, and some elements that thought it would go horribly wrong if attempted. In all cases the "doves" weren't strong enough to push their view, or ended up accepting war after getting told it was now impossible to stop things (which wasn't really the case). All big powers had the chance to prevent this mess from happening, and none of them bothered to do so. They were all to blame, to state otherwise is simply false and an attempt to whitewash the history of some of the nations.

Again, this really doesn't make sense. The only way powers other than Germany and Austria-Hungary could have stopped the war would have been to back down from a defensive position, conceding everything the opposition wanted, something that was clearly unacceptable.

Well Moltke wanted his war because he feared that in a few years Germany had no chance... Could it be that the French/Russian general staff calculated similarly, thus they would have preffered to wait it out?

What we know about their thinking doesn't really suggest this. Far from the German idea that France was itching to plunge a dagger in their backs, French thinking really seems to have focused on the fact that Germany was stronger than them by a long shot and that they were likely to be the one getting stabbed. Meanwhile, Russian thinking seems to have been fairly mixed, but one had strong pro-German elements there, and an even wider base who were aware of Russia's weakness, there was certainly the opportunity for Germany to pull a diplomatic switcheroo and exchange Austria-Hungary for Russia if she wanted and found the necessary diplomatic skill to do so.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Be all this as it may, "Who started it?" is probably the least interesting historical question you can ask about World War One.

 

[DukeDayve]

Each side wanted to negotiate from a position of strength, and even once they were in such a position, they thought, “Why not just keep going, if we’re already winning?”

But that doesn't make sense either. Your position of strength decreases the longer a war goes on. France and Britain weren't in a position of strength at the end of the war... they were in a worse position than in 1916. More bankrupt, more young men dead...

Also, they didn’t want to deal with the domestic repercussions of a loss.

The repurcussions of winning were just as bad... didn't help France and Britain much lol.

Nope, still doesn't make sense why it started, still doesn't make sense why nobody ended it in 1916.

If you went back in time and asked the soldiers on each side why the war started and what they were going to achieve by fighting -insert whoever they were fighting here- what would they say? I guess French soldiers could say they were fighting to get German soldiers off their land. Fair enough. What would Austro-Hungarian soldiers say about fighting Russians? What the hell would British soldiers say if you asked them why they were being mowed down on Turkish beaches, and what exactly is the goal?

 

[keynes2.0]

Nice you you twist things around to make them appear completely different than they actually were...

Just like there are no guilty men in prison, every warmongering two bit dictator was just the victim of fake news...

All big nations had some elements interested in starting a war,

The very model of a modern armchair historian is to move the conversation to conjecture and generalities in any and all circumstances. You dont actually have a shred of argument against the fact that France wanted Serbia to surrender or that France pulled back from the border while Germany, insanely demanded the right to put troops INSIDE FRANCE and occupy the border forts. Instead you just repeat the same vague, bland assertions.

Of course there were warmongers inside France. It was a nation of tens of millions. The point is that France and Russia were willing to make concessions for peace while Germany and Austria took a policy to start a war if at all possible.