The Great WWI Controversy: Who Was to Blame? A Panel Discussion on the Centennial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 ноя 2014
- The origins of the First World War have aroused deep controversy for decades. On the centennial of the war, there is renewed interest in revisiting its origins. Was Germany to blame? Did Europe’s statesmen sleepwalk to war? In this panel discussion, leading historians and IR experts will weigh in on the debate and offer lessons for avoiding another great power conflict.
Graham Allison: Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School
Peter Gourevitch: Professor of Political Science, University of California, San Diego
Charles S. Maier: Leverett Saltonstall Professor of History, Harvard University
Thomas Weber: Professor of History and International Affairs, University of Aberdeen; Visiting Scholar, CES
Chaired by: Alison Frank Johnson: Professor of History, Harvard University
Monday, Nov 24th, 2014
Excellent debate, going well beyond the topical issues to provide great general insights in geopolitics. Thanks to all !
My understanding is that the war was mostly the fault of the Austrian foreign minister, who as far as I know was the only one willing to lie and manipulate in order to cause war. Of course, the extent to which the blame lies with the Austrian foreign minister is at least the extent to which blame cannot lie with Germany. However Germany did have an awfully destabilizing, hair trigger type of war plan that required a first strike to work, and this sort of plan has serious moral consequences.
The third speaker is golden.
It's just absolute hell listening to you guys with your prefatory disclaimers, circumlocutions, and serial, agglutinated, interminable digressions.
If you have anything to say worth hearing, why not state your theses, establish them by argument, and then fend off objections by way of rebuttal? Why front load your discussion with this forest of boring, self protective speech tics?
My good God these guys are dull.
The big problem with Christopher Clark is that he is wrong, mostly by the sin of ommision, as he studiously ignores anything that would make it look like Jagow and Germany were still pushing Austria to hurry up and declare war in order to remove the hance of the Entente nations forcing a diplomatic solution on the situation.
If I had to pick a blame firstly it was due to the elite families. Notice they are interrelated. Also notice the Hapsburgs have different branches? Notice how the Royals of England are actually German. Part of the reason is like a competition among the inbred bloodlines and the very foundation idea of a 'royal' house. The idea that there can be competition between these houses, and that society is shaped around them. That is the first 'cause' as if that had not been the case more than likely you'd never get a first world war.
Next, the idea of empire. A good example of this idea is King Leopold who had to have his own empire and did to the point of literally owning the Congo as his personal empire. The British Empire which we should note imposed much of the damage upon its own empire's population that England later experiences itself. You can think then of WWI and WWII as simply the English getting to experience a bit of their own treatment of the rest of the world. But that empire idea was deeply rooted and of course infected the Germany leadership wanting to gain a status much like the existing British.
Next, the war between Germany and France really was clearly a huge part. Think about it. Serbia is declared war on and instead of Germany marching into to attack Serbia it declares war on France. Really Germany. Going back to the 1870's you find oh look France and Germany apparently didn't like each other and apparently had a territory that France thought was theirs. Imagine that. Then there is a guy like Bizmark with the balance of power idea. That idea really can work against a Royal who wants to build an empire, but ultimately this move by Germany against France (and the pre-existing dislike France had on Germany thinking they 'owned' a certain province) would be another cause.
Meaning, the war was that pre-existing regional hostility between germany and france just looking for an excuse. That means another conflict could have led to that same outcome. Basically both France and Germany were what we call 'butt-hurt' about what amounts to an issue probably not enough to warrent a war let along a world war.
Then there is those in the financial sector who loved the idea of war and saw they could profit from both ends, and companies who saw they could gain "bank' by doing business with their own government. Once the military industrial complex gets a hit of that crack they love it. That simply means those in business and specifically bankers loved the idea of war. It was not like they had to actually fight it. That was the job of the masses. Sort of like the actions by Wall Street. The guys doing the deals don't actually go and fight so they can have emotional distance. If their side wins or both sides buy they win financially. Of course, if they lose it might ruin them hence part of the reason the US was forced via concerted effort to enter the war and once there took abnormal steps like propoganda and acts like the Sedition Act to make sure it stayed in the war.
So far I listed Royals competition, Financial greed, the thirst for empire, and there are other reasons but here is one more I'd list (so no this is not the only reasons) but if someone did not know this Europeans are very hyper Eurocentric and have a lot of ethnic groups who are all ethnocentric and that means they are mutually prejudice both to each other and collective to anyone who is not Europeans ie 'the other'. That anti-melting pot of collective agnst and what amount of ethnic-racism was another huge factor.
But I thank the Europeans since it produced games like Axis and Allies. You can't have WWII without WWI and great games like Castle Wolfenstein. Since I enjoy playing those games. I accept the sacrifice of all those who died in those wars to provide the basis for such great games.
In the end, if you think about WWI was really Europeans treating each other like they were already (for literally centuries) treating the rest of the world. In a nut-shell that is basically the ultimate root cause.
Germany was not responisble for the terror attack in Sarajevo. This local conflict was not a reason to start a war in europe or in the whole world. But the european leadership including the british - maybe that they did not want war - but truth is they did nothing enough to prevent war. So - for this ww1 tragedy we must blame the whole european leadership. Tragedy for USA and Canada and Australia, India and Newzealand if non european countries followed the mistakes of their european partners than they had to pay the price too.
In a cablegram sent from Europe on May 29, 1914, President Wilson's chief adviser Colonel House predicted the war. He said, "Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria." That is what happened. Russia arranged the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, which was done by a Serbian terrorist organization, and in the subsequent crisis France and Russia mobilized their forces knowing this would trigger Germany's defensive plan. To cover up the conspiracy, another assassination occurred in Paris. All this is documented in my book "Twelve American Wars."
War is inevitable as long as people insist on having children. Such people will breed beyond their resources and then, inevitably, fight over those resources. The defense of African nature preserves against poachers is a prime example, and is thus doomed to fail.
Germany had the lion's share of the war guilt for WWI. It had a greater share of the blame for WWII.
The war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles overstated things, but not by as much as many today would claim, I think, just out of a desire to be nice to Germany today.
Why does he say Jap Pan instead of Japan it sounds like he imagines he is being clever and getting away with using a racial slur