Understanding the Origins of the First World War

[vinteuil]

What did you think of Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers'? I finished it fairly recently and thought it was excellent...

... many thanks, Historian, for the recommendation.

Have ordered, as a Christmas stocking present to self.

[Historian]

Although apparently it was all Germany's fault: so says that eminent historian Boris Johnson.

Remarkably ill-informed, even for a politician.

[Gordon]

Although apparently it was all Germany's fault: so says that eminent historian Boris Johnson.

Remarkably ill-informed, even for a politician.

And him with Hannoverian blood too - and a bit of a [Young?] Turk in there too! None so patriotic as immigrants eh!

Seriously though folks - I was hoping to get to this in the hope of understanding WW1:

http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=10512

but other things got in the way. It's full now though. There surely must be others, like this:

http://farncombecourses.co.uk/our-course/path-war-story-1914-2/#.UshnkCujLTo

I suppose that if it had not happened when it did for the reasons it did [allegedly] it might have happened later anyway, with or without a flashpoint, if you believe the ambitions of Kaiser Bill, the rise of German Nationalism and Militarism with an Industrial power behind it. Whilst it may have caused Germany to come to grief it certainly did for the British Empire which might have pleased Kaiser Bill in his Dutch exile.

[french frank]

Although apparently it was all Germany's fault: so says that eminent historian Boris Johnson.

Remarkably ill-informed, even for a politician.

It appears that Niall Ferguson would be at odds with Boris on much of that ...

[Barbirollians]

It appears that Niall Ferguson would be at odds with Boris on much of that ...

And Alan Clark's book The Donkeys is at the root of much of the belief that the WW1 generals were incompetent public school buffoons that Gove blames on Lefties .

Gove and Johnson have simply exposed themselves as ignorant fools .

[Historian]

I suppose that if it had not happened when it did for the reasons it did [allegedly] it might have happened later anyway, with or without a flashpoint, if you believe the ambitions of Kaiser Bill, the rise of German Nationalism and Militarism with an Industrial power behind it. Whilst it may have caused Germany to come to grief it certainly did for the British Empire which might have pleased Kaiser Bill in his Dutch exile.

Except that, for all his public statements, every time things threatened to turn nasty Wilhelm II drew back from armed conflict, until he had very little choice in July 1914. Nationalism and militarism were common across Europe, even (if you equate naval supremacy with militarism) in Britain. All the major powers seemed convinced that a conflict was more or less inevitable and that they would end on the winning side. Johnson's laughably simplistic, single issue, 'argument' reveals a complete lack of understanding of how a war in the Balkans drew in Russia, Germany, France and, eventually, Britain. While I don't expect serving politicians to have time to read large historical tomes such as Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' (see above), I had hoped for a slightly less ignorant diatribe from the Mayor.

[Barbirollians]

Except that, for all his public statements, every time things threatened to turn nasty Wilhelm II drew back from armed conflict, until he had very little choice in July 1914. Nationalism and militarism were common across Europe, even (if you equate naval supremacy with militarism) in Britain. All the major powers seemed convinced that a conflict was more or less inevitable and that they would end on the winning side. Johnson's laughably simplistic, single issue, 'argument' reveals a complete lack of understanding of how a war in the Balkans drew in Russia, Germany, France and, eventually, Britain. While I don't expect serving politicians to have time to read large historical tomes such as Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' (see above), I had hoped for a slightly less ignorant diatribe from the Mayor.

He also does not appear to have read Hunt's article at all . Hunt discussed a number of opposing views on the origins of the war including Clark's view ( and far from denied that Prussian militarism played an important part ) and Macmillan has apparently been quoted as criticising Gove for misrepresenting her work.

[mercia]

Niall Ferguson

very interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yNEvV6lI4

basically, we could (and should) have stayed out of the war, Germany would have won, A. Hitler would have continued as a contented painter, no WWII and 21st century Europe ending up just as it has

[Barbirollians]

There is a piece on the BBC website by the ubiquitous popular historian Dan Snow that strikes me as close to imbecilic in its shallow and trite analysis - I hope this is not typical of what the BBC is to present us with . His analysis of the Treaty of Versailles in particular beggars belief .

[aeolium]

There is a piece on the BBC website by the ubiquitous popular historian Dan Snow that strikes me as close to imbecilic in its shallow and trite analysis - I hope this is not typical of what the BBC is to present us with . His analysis of the Treaty of Versailles in particular beggars belief .

I totally agree, Barbirollians - an appalling piece of supposed "myth-busting".

Though I'm no fan of Niall Ferguson, I agree with his overall verdict on the war as a catastrophic and unnecessary error. The Clark book though provides a more complex analysis of the errors made by diplomats and politicians in several of the great powers, not just Britain, in the years leading up to the outbreak of the war. Well before the negotiations in the days after the assassination, Grey had given Britain's allies - particularly France - to understand that Britain would support France militarily in the event of a European conflict arising out the Balkan situation and this perhaps allowed France and Russia to be more aggressive in diplomacy vis-a-vis Germany and Austria-Hungary. It was a disastrous development to make a series of supposedly defensive alliances inextricably interlinked with changes in the volatile Balkan situation such that a European conflict was made possible, even likely, as a result of Balkan events. I am not sure that if Britain had made it clear that they would not intervene in the event of Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia (following the assassination) France would necessarily have got involved and perhaps a major European conflict would not have occurred. But that's just speculation.

[Gordon]

very interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yNEvV6lI4

basically, we could (and should) have stayed out of the war, Germany would have won, A. Hitler would have continued as a contented painter, no WWII and 21st century Europe ending up just as it has

Fascinating interview, some food for thought there for sure. One thing that didn't come up but may be in the book was: what would have happened to US influence in the 20thC? WW1 brought them in rather late after Lusitania and the Zimmermann business but it did launch them more firmly into the world arena. A European community of the sort suggested may well have developed - but would Britain become a member then or would it have retained it's Imperial status rather more tenaciously than it did before joining when it did? Such a European community may have become more powerful than the US? A NF suggested, the What Ifs in History are of interest and, one coulda argue, are vital to test conventional wisdom. In this case the "World" War aspect wasn't covered - in terms of the following century - but again perhaps the book does that.

I forget who it was that said it was too early to tell what the influence of the French Revolution was but maybe it apllies to WW1 too. Having said that see here. Talk about myths in History!!

This has interesting things to say about US foreign policy.

[aeolium]

Yes, the status of the US in the early C20 is an interesting one. It was generally recognised as a rising world power, and according to Clark in 1913 it was the world leader in industrial production. The Great War enormously accelerated its rise to pre-eminence (which may well have happened over a longer period in any case due to its size and resources) due to the reliance of the Allies on goods and credit from America. Had the war not happened, or had it been a much more narrowly contained conflict, European economies would have encountered the rise not merely of America but Russia which it's clear from Clark's book was feared as a growing military and economic force, modernising rapidly in the decades before 1914 (and Japan was also not to be discounted). I think the Balkan tensions, the disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the weakening of the Habsburg empire relative to other powers would have made it unlikely that an early form of EU could have arisen at that time.

[Gordon]

I think the Balkan tensions, the disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the weakening of the Habsburg empire relative to other powers would have made it unlikely that an early form of EU could have arisen at that time.

Well that's where it started of course. One wonders what might have happened to the Austrian Empire if Germany had become pre-eminent in central Europe. Would that Empire have become second fiddle - an Anschluss of a different kind perhaps - and would the Hungarians have been able to break out. Ottoman Empire decline probably would have continued. But what would have happened there had the future demand for oil have fallen to it rather than separate nations being under the "protection" of Britain and the US?

If also Russia had remained as was and grown what then India? Would that threat have gone away?

Another thought - the work in physics and the contribution of what became ex pat Jewish intellectuals, mathematicians and scientists i Europe at the turn of the 20thC might have caused a quite different turn of events. Particle physics, quantum theory etc leading to nuclear science could well still have ended up with a bomb but perhaps without the same impetus. As NF said about that book of 1898 he referred to, the industrialisation of warfare could well have continued and erupted over some other dispute somewhere else - a different war about oil perhaps. So many ifs, too many maybe.

[Serial_Apologist]

If also Russia had remained as was and grown what then India? Would that threat have gone away?

More significant in the light of anti-imperialist struggles I think is the question as to whether or not the Russian Revolution would have taken place and the Bolsheviks successfully taken power had WWI not taken place. The ramifications of such considerations are enormous: the possibility that without either fascism or a left reformist response to bolshevism in western Europe, and the influence of Keynsianism, the non-fascist Right might have have deflected all opposition from electoral challenge from the 1920s onwards.

[Gordon]

More significant in the light of anti-imperialist struggles I think is the question as to whether or not the Russian Revolution would have taken place and the Bolsheviks successfully taken power had WWI not taken place. The ramifications of such considerations are enormous: the possibility that without either fascism or a left reformist response to bolshevism in western Europe, and the influence of Keynsianism, the non-fascist Right might have have deflected all opposition from electoral challenge from the 1920s onwards.

Indeed. So those sons of the upper clases that were decimated by the war and so deprived the body politic of leadership survive to rule as benignly as ever. So then what price women's emancipation, [said to be a result or at leasta ccelerated by the war] social welfare and the NHS? Maggie would've had no unions to bash - but then as a woman she probably wouldn't get elected [or even born]!! Better the dystopia you know...?

Closer to home: what price Irish Home rule? Only part achieved perhaps as a result of the war?

And then what happens in South and Central America and Che Guevara, Castro et al? Imperialist USA again??

The radical anti-imperialists now are fundmentalist religious groups [with the exception of the Bible belt USA of course] but no-one would go to war to quell one of those would they?

Who was it that said History was bunk!???