June 28, 1914, World War I triggered

[williepete]

Two people killed. Millions to follow:

A Century Ago In Sarajevo: A Plot, A Farce And A Fateful Shot : NPR

 

[Picaro]

WW I started when Wilhelm II inherited the Empire from his Dad and fired Bismarck. Everything after that was just maneuvering for position. Killing Ferdinand didn't start it; that just provided a flimsy pretext for Wilhelm and Moltke to exploit against Russia.

 

[U2Edge]

Regardless of other theories, it is this event on this date that indisputably set everything in motion.

June 28, 1914: leader of Austria Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife Sophie are murdered in Sarajevo.

July 28, 1914: Military forces of Austria Hungary fire Artillery into Belgrade from across the Danube River.

August 2, 1914: Germany invades and takes over Luxembourg.

August 4, 1914: Germany invades Belgium.


I'm surprised that there has been no coverage of this anniversary on TV at all in the United States.

 

[williepete]

I'm surprised that there has been no coverage of this anniversary on TV at all in the United States.

Yeah. Speaks volumes. Too busy watching Dancing With The Stars or Desperate Housewives.

 

[Picaro]

the theory that WW I was some sort of accident has been pretty much discredited.

For the latest research and the politics of the war before and during the war itself, this book is the best on the market:

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cataclysm-First-World-Political-Tragedy/dp/0465081851"]Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy: Amazon.co.uk: David Stevenson: Books[/ame]

From the reviews:

The flow of the book is logical, but it is not completely chronological. The first section discusses the outbreak of the war, giving extensive detail about what led to the war. He even gives a few details about the minor wars that happened in the years leading up to World War I, such as the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and discusses what the world was like before the outbreak of the war. He uses all of this information to give insight into the thought processes and events that led to the almost inevitable conflagration that turned into one of the most horrific wars of our time. After this section, he discusses the widening of the war, the battles of 1915-1917, and then jumps back to cover other aspects of the war. This includes the home front, the political maneuverings in all of the belligerent governments, naval warfare, tactics, economics, and war aims, just to name some. He then moves on to the outcome of the war, how it ended, the politics of the ceasefire, and the collapse of the German army. Finally, he discusses the aftermath, and he doesn't just stop at the peace treaty. He goes all the way up to the end of World War II and beyond.
This is what I loved about Cataclysm. Stevenson doesn't just give us what happened. He discusses the purpose (or at least what the purpose was at the time, even if it doesn't seem to make any sense in modern times) of what happened, what the politicians were thinking, and what they were trying to accomplish. He delves into how the politicians managed to keep the civilians engaged in the fighting, and how limited any anti-war movements were until the war seemed to be an intractable stalemate. Stevenson even gives great detail about lesser-known campaigns, such as that in the Middle East which has produced much of the modern-day strife. He covers Austria-Hungary and their battles against both Russia and Italy, as well as the war with Serbia, most of which have been given short shrift in World War I books I have read.

...

The book re-affirms the reality of German war guilt. Previous historians had seen the interlocking system of alliances combined with both sides mobilisation plans as something which lessened the ability of individual politicians to make decisions about whether there would be war or not. In reality this was not the case and the German monarchy could have resisted but saw war as inevitable at some point.

Of particular interest are the sections on Wilhelm's General Staff determining he had about three year window to make good his dreams of an expanded Empire, and this is the catalyst. If the assassination had never happened, another pretext would have done just as well. Even Wilhelm's own appointed investigator absolved the Serbian government of complicity in the assassination, and his demands on the Serbians were willfully designed to start a war and thus bring in Russia, the real target. Excellent book on the topic, and thoroughly researched. also see Massey's Dreadnought; not as detailed as Cataclysm, but also good for the coverage of Wilhelm's provocations of nearly every country around him. The miracle is WW I didn't break out years earlier.

 

[Picaro]

I'm surprised that there has been no coverage of this anniversary on TV at all in the United States.

Few people alive now even have grandfathers who went to war then, mainly, while WW II is still relatively fresh as a historical event, as is the Cold War; it was also a fairly static war and hence didn't make for good movies or made-for-TV series like Patton, Midway, Band of Brothers, and the like. For history and politics buffs it is actually the more interesting war, and it's unresolved issues are why many see WW II as just WW I, Part 2.

 

[whitehall]

Former Princeton professor Woodie Wilson promised Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. We lost about 100,000 Americans saving France from the imperialist German Hun. What good did it do?

 

[U2Edge]

Former Princeton professor Woodie Wilson promised Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. We lost about 100,000 Americans saving France from the imperialist German Hun. What good did it do?

It help to preserve important democracies in Europe and gave Europe and the United States a chance to avert a second war as well as defeat Communism in Russia. Unfortunately, these opportunities were squandered in the aftermath of World War I. The United States retreated again into Isolation and only half heartedly help the non-communist forces in the Russian Civil War. United States isolationism also left Europe to fend for itself which it failed to do as Hitler was allowed to rise in Germany, the treaty that ended World War I was not enforced in the 1930s which allowed Germany to re-arm.

Had the United States been apart of the European system of Alliances before the start of World War I and already had US forces stationed in Belgium and France, along with British troops being stationed in France and Belgium, the Germans would have never dared to invade Belgium and France and would have counseled Austria-Hungary against going to war with Serbia.

 

[Indofred]

Regardless of other theories, it is this event on this date that indisputably set everything in motion.

June 28, 1914: leader of Austria Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife Sophie are murdered in Sarajevo.

July 28, 1914: Military forces of Austria Hungary fire Artillery into Belgrade from across the Danube River.

August 2, 1914: Germany invades and takes over Luxembourg.

August 4, 1914: Germany invades Belgium.


I'm surprised that there has been no coverage of this anniversary on TV at all in the United States.

I'm not.
The whole thing was started by a collection of people interfering in other countries' politics ad a set of amazingly stupid pacts.
That's exactly what's happening in the world today, but no in power one wants anyone to notice.

 

[whitehall]

Former Princeton professor Woodie Wilson promised Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. We lost about 100,000 Americans saving France from the imperialist German Hun. What good did it do?

It help to preserve important democracies in Europe and gave Europe and the United States a chance to avert a second war as well as defeat Communism in Russia. Unfortunately, these opportunities were squandered in the aftermath of World War I. The United States retreated again into Isolation and only half heartedly help the non-communist forces in the Russian Civil War. United States isolationism also left Europe to fend for itself which it failed to do as Hitler was allowed to rise in Germany, the treaty that ended World War I was not enforced in the 1930s which allowed Germany to re-arm.

Had the United States been apart of the European system of Alliances before the start of World War I and already had US forces stationed in Belgium and France, along with British troops being stationed in France and Belgium, the Germans would have never dared to invade Belgium and France and would have counseled Austria-Hungary against going to war with Serbia.

"Avert a 2nd war"? Allowing the old European tribes to fight it out among themselves might have averted the 2nd World War. It could be argued that the harsh terms of the Geneva Convention contributed to the worldwide conflagration scarcely 25 years later. Meanwhile the US lost about 100,000 of it's best and brightest in a wasteful trench warfare and poison gas.

 

[Unkotare]

Regardless of other theories, it is this event on this date that indisputably set everything in motion.

June 28, 1914: leader of Austria Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife Sophie are murdered in Sarajevo.

July 28, 1914: Military forces of Austria Hungary fire Artillery into Belgrade from across the Danube River.

August 2, 1914: Germany invades and takes over Luxembourg.

August 4, 1914: Germany invades Belgium.


I'm surprised that there has been no coverage of this anniversary on TV at all in the United States.

I'm not.
The whole thing was started by a collection of people interfering in other countries' politics ad a set of amazingly stupid pacts.
That's exactly what's happening in the world today, but no in power one wants anyone to notice.

I see someone still hasn't fixed his broken record...

 

[Unkotare]

I have posted links to this previously.

Lessons from World War I: Is Today's China the Germany of 1914? Where Is the Next Global Flashpoint? | Brookings Institution

 

[Manonthestreet]

Family argument......royalty was all related........"who are you to tell me?"........

 

[williepete]

Why Conrad von Hötzendorf couldn't just let it go or settle for a smaller reprisal is what baffles me. The risk was far too great. See my highlight. I don't accept his either/or premise. Especially given the weak state of the dual Austria-Hungary state.

Exerpt from a story about the assassination:

WWI Centennial: Archduke Ferdinand Is Murdered in Sarajevo | Mental Floss

But this didn’t mean his death couldn’t serve some purpose. After years of Serbian defiance, the assassination provided a perfect opportunity to settle accounts with the Slavic kingdom by force, as the Austrian chief of the general staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf, had so frequently advocated. This wasn’t just about avenging a single crime: The time had come to reverse the tide of Slavic nationalism, which posed an existential threat to the multiethnic empire. In short, war was the only option, even at risk of a wider conflict with Serbia’s great Slavic patron, Russia. In a meeting with his staff on June 29, 1914, Conrad outlined the case he would shortly present to Emperor Franz Josef, Foreign Minister Count Berchtold, and Hungarian Premier Count István Tisza:


"Austria-Hungary cannot let the challenge pass with cool equanimity nor, after the blow on the one cheek, offer the other in Christian meekness, neither is it a case for a chivalrous encounter with “poor little” Serbia, as she likes to call herself, nor for atonement for murder – what is now at issue is the strictly practical importance of the prestige of a Great Power… The Sarajevo outrage has toppled over the house of cards built up with diplomatic documents… the Monarchy has been seized by the throat and forced to choose between letting itself be strangled and making a last effort to defend itself against attack."

 

[Picaro]

Why Conrad von Hötzendorf couldn't just let it go or settle for a smaller reprisal is what baffles me. The risk was far too great. See my highlight. I don't accept his either/or premise. Especially given the weak state of the dual Austria-Hungary state.



Wilhelm surrounded himself with staff that told him what he wanted to hear.

With Ferdinand dead, a major faction in the 'Peace' wing disappeared, with Tisza too politically weak to resist the War Lobby.

 

[Discombobulated]

the theory that WW I was some sort of accident has been pretty much discredited.

For the latest research and the politics of the war before and during the war itself, this book is the best on the market:

Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy: Amazon.co.uk: David Stevenson: Books

From the reviews:

The flow of the book is logical, but it is not completely chronological. The first section discusses the outbreak of the war, giving extensive detail about what led to the war. He even gives a few details about the minor wars that happened in the years leading up to World War I, such as the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and discusses what the world was like before the outbreak of the war. He uses all of this information to give insight into the thought processes and events that led to the almost inevitable conflagration that turned into one of the most horrific wars of our time. After this section, he discusses the widening of the war, the battles of 1915-1917, and then jumps back to cover other aspects of the war. This includes the home front, the political maneuverings in all of the belligerent governments, naval warfare, tactics, economics, and war aims, just to name some. He then moves on to the outcome of the war, how it ended, the politics of the ceasefire, and the collapse of the German army. Finally, he discusses the aftermath, and he doesn't just stop at the peace treaty. He goes all the way up to the end of World War II and beyond.
This is what I loved about Cataclysm. Stevenson doesn't just give us what happened. He discusses the purpose (or at least what the purpose was at the time, even if it doesn't seem to make any sense in modern times) of what happened, what the politicians were thinking, and what they were trying to accomplish. He delves into how the politicians managed to keep the civilians engaged in the fighting, and how limited any anti-war movements were until the war seemed to be an intractable stalemate. Stevenson even gives great detail about lesser-known campaigns, such as that in the Middle East which has produced much of the modern-day strife. He covers Austria-Hungary and their battles against both Russia and Italy, as well as the war with Serbia, most of which have been given short shrift in World War I books I have read.

...

The book re-affirms the reality of German war guilt. Previous historians had seen the interlocking system of alliances combined with both sides mobilisation plans as something which lessened the ability of individual politicians to make decisions about whether there would be war or not. In reality this was not the case and the German monarchy could have resisted but saw war as inevitable at some point.

Of particular interest are the sections on Wilhelm's General Staff determining he had about three year window to make good his dreams of an expanded Empire, and this is the catalyst. If the assassination had never happened, another pretext would have done just as well. Even Wilhelm's own appointed investigator absolved the Serbian government of complicity in the assassination, and his demands on the Serbians were willfully designed to start a war and thus bring in Russia, the real target. Excellent book on the topic, and thoroughly researched. also see Massey's Dreadnought; not as detailed as Cataclysm, but also good for the coverage of Wilhelm's provocations of nearly every country around him. The miracle is WW I didn't break out years earlier.

While the Kaiser's men may have had dreams of empire they certainly didn't plan on going to war with Russia, Britain, and France all at once. So in that sense, yes, the First World War was an accident. It certainly didn't unfold according to any planned strategy.

 

[Picaro]

While the Kaiser's men may have had dreams of empire they certainly didn't plan on going to war with Russia, Britain, and France all at once. So in that sense, yes, the First World War was an accident. It certainly didn't unfold according to any planned strategy.

They had planning for just that for a long time, which was why they developed the Schefflin Plan and built their railheads right up to the borders of Belgium and in the East as well. They were well aware of the the various Treaties the nations around them had forged after the sack of Bismarck and the subsequent destabilization of European politics. His sabre rattling almost from the beginning of his reign touched off an arms race on all sides.

Sure, they would have loved it if the surrounding countries had just given them what they wanted without a war, but they certainly planned for the alternative; the Imperial General Staff had been warning Wilhelm that he had around a three year window before Russia's modernization program would be complete and his allies would be strong enough to slowly strangle Germany on all sides if he didn't move soon, so he took the Serbian problem as a pretext; the need to remove them was because of Russia's interest in that region, and he knew full well attacking Serbia would bring in Russia.

He also knew that also meant having to attack France; when France balked, he just faked an 'incident' and invaded anyway. The only 'wild card' was whether or not Britain would honor its defense pact with Belgium, but he hoped the initial invasion would go quickly and he would be in Paris before Britain would react.

A basic synopsis of their plans:

Schlieffen Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lacks a lot of the details the Cataclysm book has, but close enough for hand grenades, at least as a base for further discussions on it.

 

[Discombobulated]

While the Kaiser's men may have had dreams of empire they certainly didn't plan on going to war with Russia, Britain, and France all at once. So in that sense, yes, the First World War was an accident. It certainly didn't unfold according to any planned strategy.

They had planning for just that for a long time, which was why they developed the Schefflin Plan and built their railheads right up to the borders of Belgium and in the East as well. They were well aware of the the various Treaties the nations around them had forged after the sack of Bismarck and the subsequent destabilization of European politics. His sabre rattling almost from the beginning of his reign touched off an arms race on all sides.

Sure, they would have loved it if the surrounding countries had just given them what they wanted without a war, but they certainly planned for the alternative; the Imperial General Staff had been warning Wilhelm that he had around a three year window before Russia's modernization program would be complete and his allies would be strong enough to slowly strangle Germany on all sides if he didn't move soon, so he took the Serbian problem as a pretext; the need to remove them was because of Russia's interest in that region, and he knew full well attacking Serbia would bring in Russia.

He also knew that also meant having to attack France; when France balked, he just faked an 'incident' and invaded anyway. The only 'wild card' was whether or not Britain would honor its defense pact with Belgium, but he hoped the initial invasion would go quickly and he would be in Paris before Britain would react.

A basic synopsis of their plans:

Schlieffen Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lacks a lot of the details the Cataclysm book has, but close enough for hand grenades, at least as a base for further discussions on it.

The Germans didn't follow the Schlieffen Plan, probably one reason why they didn't succeed in France. They were improvising because fighting Russia, France, and Britain all at once was never part of their strategic planning.

 

[Picaro]

While the Kaiser's men may have had dreams of empire they certainly didn't plan on going to war with Russia, Britain, and France all at once. So in that sense, yes, the First World War was an accident. It certainly didn't unfold according to any planned strategy.

They had planning for just that for a long time, which was why they developed the Schefflin Plan and built their railheads right up to the borders of Belgium and in the East as well. They were well aware of the the various Treaties the nations around them had forged after the sack of Bismarck and the subsequent destabilization of European politics. His sabre rattling almost from the beginning of his reign touched off an arms race on all sides.

Sure, they would have loved it if the surrounding countries had just given them what they wanted without a war, but they certainly planned for the alternative; the Imperial General Staff had been warning Wilhelm that he had around a three year window before Russia's modernization program would be complete and his allies would be strong enough to slowly strangle Germany on all sides if he didn't move soon, so he took the Serbian problem as a pretext; the need to remove them was because of Russia's interest in that region, and he knew full well attacking Serbia would bring in Russia.

He also knew that also meant having to attack France; when France balked, he just faked an 'incident' and invaded anyway. The only 'wild card' was whether or not Britain would honor its defense pact with Belgium, but he hoped the initial invasion would go quickly and he would be in Paris before Britain would react.

A basic synopsis of their plans:

Schlieffen Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lacks a lot of the details the Cataclysm book has, but close enough for hand grenades, at least as a base for further discussions on it.

The Germans didn't follow the Schlieffen Plan, probably one reason why they didn't succeed in France. They were improvising because fighting Russia, France, and Britain all at once was never part of their strategic planning.

I guess when they launched the Schliefflin-Moltke Plan they were talking about another Schliefflin. The changes Moltke made were to not invade the Netherlands, and shifting divisions away from the assault through Belgium to the center; this latter weakened the invasion and left the German right flank wide open and left insufficient reserves to take Paris, hence the failure. On the eastern front it went pretty well comparatively. They overestimated the ability of the Dual Monarchy to win quickly over the Serbs, though, and that front bogged down pretty fast, leaving their Ottoman allies to fend for themselves.

They weren't improvising, they had been planning on a two-front war for a long time; all they were waiting for was the pretext. The other countries' arms buildup made it necessary to force the issues as soon as possible.

 

[Discombobulated]

They had planning for just that for a long time, which was why they developed the Schefflin Plan and built their railheads right up to the borders of Belgium and in the East as well. They were well aware of the the various Treaties the nations around them had forged after the sack of Bismarck and the subsequent destabilization of European politics. His sabre rattling almost from the beginning of his reign touched off an arms race on all sides.

Sure, they would have loved it if the surrounding countries had just given them what they wanted without a war, but they certainly planned for the alternative; the Imperial General Staff had been warning Wilhelm that he had around a three year window before Russia's modernization program would be complete and his allies would be strong enough to slowly strangle Germany on all sides if he didn't move soon, so he took the Serbian problem as a pretext; the need to remove them was because of Russia's interest in that region, and he knew full well attacking Serbia would bring in Russia.

He also knew that also meant having to attack France; when France balked, he just faked an 'incident' and invaded anyway. The only 'wild card' was whether or not Britain would honor its defense pact with Belgium, but he hoped the initial invasion would go quickly and he would be in Paris before Britain would react.

A basic synopsis of their plans:

Schlieffen Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lacks a lot of the details the Cataclysm book has, but close enough for hand grenades, at least as a base for further discussions on it.

The Germans didn't follow the Schlieffen Plan, probably one reason why they didn't succeed in France. They were improvising because fighting Russia, France, and Britain all at once was never part of their strategic planning.

I guess when they launched the Schliefflin-Moltke Plan they were talking about another Schliefflin. The changes Moltke made were to not invade the Netherlands, and shifting divisions away from the assault through Belgium to the center; this latter weakened the invasion and left the German right flank wide open and left insufficient reserves to take Paris, hence the failure. On the eastern front it went pretty well comparatively. They overestimated the ability of the Dual Monarchy to win quickly over the Serbs, though, and that front bogged down pretty fast, leaving their Ottoman allies to fend for themselves.

They weren't improvising, they had been planning on a two-front war for a long time; all they were waiting for was the pretext. The other countries' arms buildup made it necessary to force the issues as soon as possible.

So if I understand you correctly your theory is that the First World War unfolded according to a German plan. Is that right? I think you may need to refer to more than one author to overturn history.