Is there any one thing that prevents World War 1 or is it inevitable?

[Justin Moretti]

I got thinking about this the other day: is there a way to prevent the First World War by making one single change, and if so, what is that change to be?

For me, the only potential candidate is the Kaiser not giving Austria a blank cheque of support. Instead, he tells the Austrians "We've looked at this, and any way it goes, we subsume Europe in blood and change the course of history in the worst possible way. So whatever you do in Serbia, you do it alone - and we will not save you from the Russians." 

The problem with this is that even if things get resolved peacefully, it does nothing to quell French revanchism. France is still left spoiling for a fight, and let's assume that things boil over and it decides to start one. What then? Are we not right back to square one, with the Schlieffen Plan being activated as soon as the sabre-rattling becomes really serious? If it is, does this not bring Britain in at once? Or since Germany is standing on the defensive this time, does Schlieffen get binned, thus avoiding the violation of Belgian neutrality that was Britain's casus belli and offering both Britain and Russia an excuse to tell France "No, you are the warmongers here and we are not going to support you in this."

If THAT happens, then what we probably get is a re-run of the Franco-Prussian War, with disastrous effects on the French psyche if France loses a war fought in the name of revenge for its previous losses (which it probably will). 

[Jeff Estes]

Seems to me, it was Moltke the Younger and Bethmann Holwig who started the war. I understand the Kaiser was satisfied by Serbia's capitulation to Austria's demands, but the two Prussian warmonger cut the Kaiser from the dialog and set Russian army mobilization into motion. So, if the Kaiser wouldn't have gone sailing on his yacht before the Sarajevo assassination, his direct involvement may have prevented the spark. But all sides seemed to be itching for what they seemed would be a short, decisive battle, and return home as heroes before Christmas...

[brianmorris547]

Justin

There is a very good documentary called "The Long Road to War". It was recently shown in two parts on PBS America and will no doubt be on again soon. It explains the events and politics leading up to the Kaiser's famous note, Jetz oder nie. You can research it on line and I believe it is available on Netflix (whatever that is). You can draw your own conclusions. Despite what was going on I still think that our Germans could have done more to rein in their cousin. The BBC 4 documentary Royal Cousins at War partly explains why they did not.

Brian

[phil andrade]

The Great War was not inevitable, in my opinion.

There are choices and contingencies in the way people behave.

Few would deny the statement that, in the febrile geo strategic circumstances, war was all too likely, but that is a long way from inevitability.

One thing does occur to me  : the preoccupation of the British government with the crisis in Ireland in the months preceding the outbreak of war did take their eye off the ball.  Is it fanciful to imagine that a more forceful- and earlier - intervention by Grey, the British Foreign Secretary,  could have brought a more moderating voice into the way the crisis developed in the summer of 1914 ?

 

Those “ dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone “ that Churchill mentioned in his memoir had a lot to answer for.

 

Phil

Edited 10 January by phil andrade

[Justin Moretti]

On 09/01/2024 at 03:59, Jeff Estes said:

Seems to me, it was Moltke the Younger and Bethmann Holwig who started the war. I understand the Kaiser was satisfied by Serbia's capitulation to Austria's demands, but the two Prussian warmonger cut the Kaiser from the dialog and set Russian army mobilization into motion. So, if the Kaiser wouldn't have gone sailing on his yacht before the Sarajevo assassination, his direct involvement may have prevented the spark. But all sides seemed to be itching for what they seemed would be a short, decisive battle, and return home as heroes before Christmas...

I'm pretty sure I was exposed at one point to the viewpoint that everyone collectively felt it was so inevitable eventually that it was better to have it now rather than later and get it over with. Nobody expected it to turn into the malignant grind that it did. Part of the problem IMHO is that while the Schlieffen plan failed overall, it worked well enough for Germany to grab most of Belgium and sufficient strategically important chunks of France that it didn't want to give them up. Had it been stopped on the French border or driven back to it everywhere, it might have been much easier to reach a compromise peace toward the end of 1914. But that's in the realm of alternative history.

Edited 15 January by Justin Moretti

[phil andrade]

Justin,

 

” Nobody expected it to turn into the malignant grind that it did.”

 

There were some sagacious voices that predicted with chilling accuracy what lay ahead.

Do we too readily attribute naivety to the people of 1914 ?

 

Phil 

[Justin Moretti]

14 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

There were some sagacious voices that predicted with chilling accuracy what lay ahead.

There were, but whether they were heeded is another matter. 

[stevenbecker]

Sorry I think Britian is the main cause of the world war.

If Britian had not gone to war, Germany would have beaten France, like in 1870 and gone home or to finish the Russians in Prussia.

These types of wars had been going on for Centuries in Europe, but Britian's entry made it a world war, and the land grab across the globe

Of cause the Russians are the wild card, and there war across the Eastern Front drawing in the Austrians and Germans

In stead of fighting, if Britian did what the Yanks did, supply arms and every thing else to the warring nations, instead of wasteing all their weath, they would have made money instead the country was runined for years after, much like after WWII