Was it Logically or Morally right to Blame Germany for WWI?

[EmperorSolo51]

Throughout my studies in Highschool on the subject of World War I in both Normal and AP History classes, I was always taught that it was Germany who got the blame for starting it, with's it's Blank Check to Austria-Hungary and the mobilization against the Entente Cordiale and it's invasion into Belgium and France. Regardless of the fact It was Gavrilo Princip and his Black Hand buddies in the Serbian Government who plotted to kill and then succeeded in shooting and killing Franz Ferdinand, the Heir to the Austro-hungarian Throne after several attempts on that black Day in July 1914.

As I got older and read more on the subject, I learned that the events of July 1914 spired out of control too fast and that Germany was only reacting to these events such as the Partial Mobilization by Russia and France against Germany. Even though Germany had tried to talk down the Austrians' impending invasion of Serbia to no avail. By August 1914, Germany was backed into a corner both miltarily and politically and used the only option available to her and that was War.

Even when all of these pre-war incidents are taken into account, the Wartime Allies still blamed Germany for starting the war and give her exceedingly harsh terms in the Palace of Versaille in 1919. Even though historians have shed light into the politics of July-August 1914, these same Histrians like Sir Martin Gilbert, continue to lay blame to Germany for being the root cause of the war.

What say the members of Sd.net on this subject?

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think it's fair to lay responsibility on any one party. The Alliance system virtually guaranteed that such a war would be fought eventually, everyone was just looking for a spark to get the thing going.

[Alliance SpecForceTrooper]

France and Russia get the blame in my opinion, though more France because their diplomats bullied the Russians into partial mobilization.

[2000AD]

I don't think it's fair to lay responsibility on any one party. The Alliance system virtually guaranteed that such a war would be fought eventually, everyone was just looking for a spark to get the thing going.

Captain Edmund Blackadder sums it up nicely.

"You see, in order to prevent a war, two great alliances were formed. Us the French and the Russians on one side and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other side. The idea was to have two great and vast armies, each being the deterrant to the other and thus, there would be no war. There was just one tiny fault in this great plan."
"What was that?"
"It was pile of bollocks."

[Spoonist]

Austria-Hungary because it was well known that they already had plans for serbia and that the assassination of Franz was a convenient excuse to justify the plans they already had.

[Spoonist]

Though I would say that Germany isn't faultless, they could have broken the alliance and given implicit reasons why.
That way it wouldn't have been a world war.


History is always written by the victor.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Though I would say that Germany isn't faultless, they could have broken the alliance and given implicit reasons why.
That way it wouldn't have been a world war.

Breaking the alliance? As I understand it, you might as well suggest they surrender to avoid war, seeing that the continent was being held on delicate power balances formed from the alliance. No one can really afford to back out of their alliance.

Of course, one can argue war is so horrible that even a shameful surrender is better than fighting it, but that's another argument I would think.

[Akhlut]

If I remember correctly, Austria-Hungary didn't even give Serbia a week to do anything diplomatic about the Black Hand after the assassination. It gave Serbia an ultimatum to follow with only 48 hours notice and then invaded. So, I'd say that A-H takes most of the blame for the war.

[Gandalf]

If I remember correctly, Austria-Hungary didn't even give Serbia a week to do anything diplomatic about the Black Hand after the assassination. It gave Serbia an ultimatum to follow with only 48 hours notice and then invaded. So, I'd say that A-H takes most of the blame for the war.

But would they have had the balls to do that if Germany hadn't given them the black cheque?

[AMX]

The poll really needs an "Everyone" option.

If I remember correctly, Austria-Hungary didn't even give Serbia a week to do anything diplomatic about the Black Hand after the assassination. It gave Serbia an ultimatum to follow with only 48 hours notice and then invaded. So, I'd say that A-H takes most of the blame for the war.

Assassinatipon: June 28th
End of diplomatic relations: July 25th
Declaration of war: July 28th
You were saying?

Though I would say that Germany isn't faultless, they could have broken the alliance and given implicit reasons why.
That way it wouldn't have been a world war.

You could just as well blame Russia, for not failing to support Serbia, which would have had the same effect.

Although I, personally, prefer to blame Italy. They didn't really do much in the start-the-war department, but I like blameing Italy.
Damn traitors.

[Akhlut]

Assassinatipon: June 28th
End of diplomatic relations: July 25th
Declaration of war: July 28th
You were saying?

Ah, so I didn't remember correctly. Woops. I imagine I misremembered how things occurred precisely since last time I went over WWI in an academic setting was about 3 and a half years ago in high school.

[CmdrWilkens]

All the parties have a great deal of blame laid on their shoulders and mostly it rests on the fact that war was not seen as something so intrinsically wrong as to be avoided at all costs. You can only stop a war when all the parties involved see a greater benifit in not starting the war than in starting it. The problem at this time was that NO ONE, well almost no one, foresaw the degree to which the war would consume the continent.

However I place blame on two parties principally. Austria-Hungary for going to Germany in the first place. WHile they were bound by treaty that was active only if attacked by outside parties. There was no obligation to seek her support against Serbia. Moreover had they acted quickly perhaps within a few days after gaining confessions on July 2nd they might have gotten away with crushing Serbia and then negotiating a peace all before Russia got in the act. Essentially had Autria-Hungary simply acted with energy an independence the whole thing might simply have been yet another Balkan War which would get 1914 tacked onto its end as with either of the two previous conflicts so named. The other party is Russia. On the 25th when the Serbs were contemplating submission to the demands of Autria-Hungary the Russians declared their pre-mobilization. Had this edict been witheld for even a few more days it is highly likely that the Serbs, seeing no apparent support, would have simply acceded to the demands in order to keep their country (as the Imperial note had eliminated any demands for territorial concessions or infringment of sovreignty beyond those breaches neccessarry to complete the investigation into the assassination). Essentially had Russian managed to stay put for just a few damn days there might have been no fighting at all and with Serbia thus reduced the likelyhood of it servng as a flare-point in the near future would be reduced.