World War I discussion!?

Question

what are the primary causes of this conflict ?

which nation is most responsible for this war?

i need back up support as to why and which answer is most appropriate. historians and their opinions would be helpful too!

Answer 1

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble; but if by most responsible, you mean most able to have prevented the entire thing, the answer is easily Germany.  The notion that entangling alliances and the rampant "isms" coalesced into a powder keg that was ignited by the assassination of the Archduke is romantic, but hardly helps you to understand why in 1914 Austria served Serbia the ultimatum that no world power (including Germany) believed the Serbs could accept without surrendering their sovereignty. One nation had the power to pull back on Austria's leash to prevent the world war. The question is, why didn't they?

I recommend beginning with Fritz Fischer's famous book, Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914-1918 (loosely translated as Bid For World Power: Imperial Germany's Aims in the First World War. The German General Staff believed for a number of years prior that war with Russia was inevitable. Von Moltke, head of the Staff believed that Germany had a small window of time in which to wage a victorious war against Russia for hegemony of the continent. He also believed that the German people would have to believe that Russian incited the war in order to gain the public's support. Once France allied with Russia, the General Staff concluded that a two front war would only be possible if France could be beaten quickly, in time to shift armies to the east to confront Russia. The Germans counted on a slowly mobilizing Russian army and the Austro-Hungarian army to hold the east long enough to allow for the quick action in the west.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the inciting incident von Moltke and the General Staff had been waiting for and they pressed the reluctant Austro-Hungarians to give the Serbs the ultimatum and eventually declare war. The cables between Berlin and Vienna betray the German's true intentions as the German messages become increasingly shrill in their tone when they suspect the Austrians will cave to worldwide pressure and not declare war. The German General Staff demanded as much and the Austrians complied and declared war. (As a corollary, it is worth noting here that the British asked the Germans to pressure Austria-Hungary to relax its militant position against the Serbs in order to prevent a european war. The Germans insisted they were doing just that, however the exact opposite was the case) as evidenced in the documented communication between the German and Austrian foreign ministries.)

Once the Russians mobilized to support the Serbs against Austria-Hungary, the Germans mobilized, claiming the Russian mobilization instigated war against the Germans.

For the Germans, speed was ultimate. It would be necessary to defeat the Belgians and French before the British could arrive in force. The Schlieffen Plan broke down when the Belgians (aided by a fast arriving British Expeditionary Force) put up a much stronger fight than the Germans expected and ultimately the plan collapsed at the Marne.

German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg is on record stating Germany's plans for a MittleEuropa or a United States of Europe. While these objectives were not on paper until after the war had started, there is good evidence they were in existence prior to the war.

Fischer was widely condemned in 1961 by his senior historians for alleging that Germany was responsible for the war and that it indeed had any war aims. However, Fischer's thesis is now widely accepted.

Von Moltke, head of the German General Staff was relegated to a desk job soon after the Schlieffen Plan broke down. Shortly thereafter he lamented to a fellow general that he had been removed from the action of this war that he had "prepared and initiated."

Answer 2

You've got your work cut out for you.  The traditional explanation is that it is all Germany's fault but not so.  I will give you my explanation, something I usually demonstrate with diagrams and household objects representing the belligerent states.  But I can't do that so here goes:  The primary cause of the conflict was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, by Serbian militants.  Austria got very angry indeed at Serbia, which was backed by Russia at the time.  Russia wanted to unite all Slavic states in some Pan-Slavic happy-land, something they eventually succeeded in doing, though it wasn't happy.  Anyway, so Russia backed Serbia against Austria.  Austria turned to its ally, Germany, and the Germans said they would support Austria no matter what.  So Austria declared war on Serbia, causing Russia to mobilize its forces.  Added problem:  France had signed a pact with Russia, thus it was obligated to mobilize as well.  Another problem: The Germans had long seen France and Russia as threatening, so they had planned for this two-front war at the beginning of the 20th century.  They had a guy named Schlieffen who wrote a plan, appropriately called the Schlieffen plan, which said that in the event of war breaking out between Germany and the alliance of France and Russia, Germany would attack France first because it would, by the calculations German generals in 1900, take Russia six weeks to mobilize its forces on the eastern German border.  Thus, after knocking out France, Germany could focus its efforts on beating up the Russians.  Well, it didn't work that way because the Russians had a far better technology, thus they were able to be at the Germans' door a lot sooner than anticipated.  So they ended up having to fight the Russians, but they were also in the process of invading France.  Now, the Germans had also calculated that France could most easily be taken down by invading through Belgium, it's northern neighbor.  Trouble is that Belgium had made a pact with Britain to the effect that Britain would be obliged to defend Belgium (a neutral nation) if its borders were violated.  Now the Germans, being practical people, never actually anticipated that the British would follow up on this treaty.  Nor did the British make it very well-known that they gave a d**n about Belgium at all.  In fact, British intentions had been a mystery to the Germans for awhile, a fact that made them understandably nervous.  In any event, the Germans entered Belgium, the British finally decided enough was enough and they declared war on Germany, too.  

Now, from all this, people believe that Germany is at fault.  In fact, the truth is much more complicated.  Had the Germans been sure of British intentions, they might never have invaded France, or, more likely, they would simply have done it some other way.  It is also likely that the British would have found some reason to make war on the Germans regardless, just to bring them down a peg.  Many people have said that the First World War was mainly a fight between Britain and Germany.  Whether or not this is true, I don't know.  I think the Australians, Canadians, French, Americans, Indians, Italians, Austrians, Russians, etc. would all disagree.  But in any event, my answer is that NO NATION was at fault for the First World War.  If we have to blame anyone it should be the traditional ruling elites who had no idea what a modern conflict would look like but decided to open up Pandora's Box and have a nose around anyway, to devastating effect on those in less privileged positions.  They thought the war would be fast and mobile.  In fact it was protracted and immobile, with victory being measured in yards, not miles.  13 million men died for absolutely no reason.  It was an awful war and the only people to blame were those in power in ALL belligerent governments.

Answer 3

I think the Serbians should get more credit than they usually do.  They didnt actually HAVE to assassinate the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary.  They had become quite bellicose, and had just concluded a Balkan War in which they doubled their territory.  The Serbian Intelligence Service backed the band of assassins, though they tried to deny it.  Curiously, they did it because Franz Ferdinand was a nice guy.  He showed signs of being a reformer, and as Franz Joseph had ruled for over sixty years he would surely soon be on the throne, and they feared that if he accommodated the ethnic Serbs in his Empire, they might lose their revolutionary fervor and their desire to be included within the borders of Pan Serbia.  Its interesting to note that when Yugoslavia disintegrated they picked up right where they left off seventy-five years before.

For second place I'd nominate the Russians.  They had no treaty or alliance obligating them to go to war on Serbia's behalf.  Nicholas II had apparently given his word, but this was not something that could be generally widely known in diplomatic circles.

I'd place the Austrians in third, for their perhaps unreasonable demands upon Serbia after the assassination, and for their deceitful foreign minister, who distorted the facts and misrepresented Serbian responses to Austrian demands.

I'd put the Germans in fourth place, because it was German militarism which had alarmed all Europe during the reign of "William the Sudden".  Concern over Germany's intentions had caused the most autocratic and repressive monarchy in Europe to make strange bedfellows and ally with, of all things, a Republic, in the Russo-French Alliance.  More than anything else it was the unification of the numerous German states into one nation under Bismarck which had upset the balance of power established in the "Concert of Vienna" after Napoleon was finally disposed of, and which preserved a mostly peaceful Europe for ninety-nine years.

I'd place the French in fifth place.  When Germany became unified they immediately picked a fight and started a war which they promptly lost.  They burned for revenge for the next forty years, and ached for the recovery of the provinces lost as a result of this adventure, Alsace and Lorraine.  It was this thirst for revenge which led them to see the value of an alliance with Russia.

The previous answer is an admirable recitation of the events precipitating the broader conflict, but I would offer two clarifications.  The Russians still took many weeks to mobilize, but the French begged them hysterically to move immediately, with whatever forces were at hand, in the hopes of saving France, and they obliged.  This may have been decisive as it did cause the Germans to depart from their plan and detach three army corps from France and entrain them for the eastern front, perhaps fatally weakening the effort in France and certainly thinning the German line, and they arrived too late to take part in the campaign to stop the premature Russian advance in the east.

There were four Great Powers who were signatories to the Treaty in 1837 guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, not just Great Britain.  Germany was one of these and still made the cynical decision to ignore their own commitment and invade France by going through Belgium.  The German foreign minister at the time scornfully referred to the Treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality as "A scrap of paper."

EDIT:  The next answer makes an interesting argument, but its curious that the nation "most able to have prevented the entire thing...is easily Germany".  Even making the very large assumption that all the other claims made in the answer are true, would not Serbia still be responsible for the assassination, which set the entire train of events in motion?

Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary was no secret.  Whatever Russia's promises to Serbia may have been, no one outside those two nations knew.  But the Russians would have had to know when they mobilized against the Dual Monarchy, without any obligation under treaty or alliance to assist Serbia, that they were thereby courting war not just with Austria-Hungary but Germany as well.

Thus the nations most at fault have to remain Serbia, for assassinating the heir to the neighboring colossus, and Russia, for widening the conflict when they had no obligation to assist a nation which was clearly in the wrong.  Had Russia not involved herself, the conflict would have remained one between an aggrieved Austria-Hungary and a guilty Serbia.

Fischer wrote at a time when Germany was divided after their continuation in WWII of their attempts at European domination in the first war, and the dust had barely settled and a sea change had taken place in German attitudes toward militarism.  As noted, he was criticized at the time, and the criticisms remain valid, because Fischer's case is based on faulty interpretations both of Germany's prewar plans and of Germany's part in the events of July 1914.

The German general staff would have been remiss had they NOT planned for war against any feasible opponent.  America's command has done the same for more than eighty years.  When we entered into war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, the War Plan implemented was "Orange 5"  - Orange for Japan.  We had plans for war in the Pacific against every possible opponent, including Great Britain, and each had their own code color.  This may be disconcerting, but it is hardly sinister.  Its what generals and admirals get paid to do in peacetime - to prepare for any eventuality.

The Kaiser met with an Austrian envoy on July 5 and gave assurances that Germany would honor her obligations under the alliance with Austria-Hungary.  Then the Kaiser departed on a North Sea cruise, which had been planned for months, and was gone twenty days.  Berchtold, the Austrian foreign minister, was already at work, deceiving the uncommitted within his own government as to the demands which would be made on Serbia.  Berchtold also deliberately kept Berlin in the dark about what he was plotting, disregarded most German requests for information, and on those rare occasions when he deigned to make reply, did so tardily and with half truths.  When Serbia then Austria-Hungary mobilized, shock waves rocked Europe.  The Kaiser was furious, and attempted to mediate between the two.  There is nothing in any source on the subject which justifies the answerer's assertion that "German messages become increasingly shrill in their tone when they suspect the Austrians will cave to worldwide pressure and not declare war", though this may have been what Fischer contended.  It appears to be entirely without basis in fact.  The Kaiser was surprised, as was most of Europe.

Answer 4

1. Nationalism, treaties and alliances between European nations.

2. Probably Austria-Hungarian Empire, they declared war on Serbia after terrorists killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and set off the domino effect.