Causes of WW1

the austrians didnt think they could afford to look weak, the russians wanted to promote pan-slavism and expand their influence, the germans were looking to establish german hegemony having come off rather poorly in the attempt to establish a colonial empire.

the french allied with russia seeking a counterweight to germany, the british entered the triple alliance seeking a counter to germany as well especially given germany was attempting to supplant britain as the major sea power in europe.

the the arch duke got killed, the austrians with a push from germany started down a path that led inevitably to war with serbia and thus with russia, the germans joined in the french backed the russians and the british tried desparately to get everyone to talk rather than fight (britains interest being in preserving the status quo and balance of power) but with that having failed and belgium having been invaded, declared war as well

All the big powers wanted a war. The status quo was being threatened and war was the best way to either reinforce or break it

The french intelligence service paid a pan-slavist serbian lunatic (who also happened to be freemason) to murder the archduke so as to start the second thirty years war

Read this,especially the WW1-related quotes

balder.org/judea/Important-Quotations-For-A-Better-Understanding-Of-WWII.php

Unironically kill yourself, Jacqués/Mordechai

Austria decided to flex their nuts because some Serbian fucking shit shit their crown prince. Since Serbia did agree to a third party investigation of the killing, this seems excessive. As such, they caused the war in Europe.

Russia screams "SLAVIC PRIDE WORLD WIDE" at the top of their lungs, because they felt that if they didn't get involved, the world would dismiss them as the beta nerds that they were. As such, they escalated the conflict into a general European war.

Flash forward, Germany had invaded Belgium, drawing Britain into the war, escalating the conflict into a world war. Or, if you're a wehraboo, it's Britain's fault because "muh scrap of paper", or for getting all hot and bothered that Germany was building an ocean fleet that would make the Royal Navy's 2:1 ratio impossible. Or Belgium's fault for picking sides by refusing Germany access. Though had they done this, they almost certainly would have been invaded by the Entente. Or France's fault for refusing to unequivocally denounce Russia's bullshit.

In terms of whodunnit
Serbia>Austria-Hungary>Russia>Germany=France>Britain>Belgium

For the first time ever, the Ottomans dindu nuffin.

>In terms of whodunnit
>Serbia>Austria-Hungary>Russia>Germany=France>Britain>Belgium

How is Serbia more at fault than Austria and Britain less at fault than France?

>Serbia>Austria-Hungary>Russia>Germany=France
maximum kys

>Guys I'm looking for an unbiased opinion on the causes of WW1, I just want to learn who is really responsible for causing the war
Then don't ask on Veeky Forums.

Read anything by Strachan or Herwig.

Austrians
Blood thirsty mongrels drove Serbia into a corner and triggered the war, Germany was right behind them giving them a pad in the back.

The ones who lost are to blame.

Of course

nigger Serbia was literaly the last shit hole who wanted this war, they did all they could to keep Austria happy until they asked too much

First you have to understand the general political setup. The British "balance of power" agenda, Balkan politics, alliances guarantees and so on and so on.

What's important is to avoid Weimar era propaganda which is everywhere, even on this very board.

Germany, Austria, France and Russia all share a responsibility. All of them steered Europe towards war in a big game of chicken. They all had very good reasons for acting as they did, but in the end all of them refused to to find a diplomatic solution, unwilling to give in even an inch.

Poincaré gave Russia a carte blance, assuring them that they would honour their alliances even if it came to the worst, quite akin to how Germany acted towards Austria. Had he chosen different words, Russia possibly would have taken a more diplomatic stance.

naw, he's right. nationalism caused ww1 and democracy caused ww2. both ideologies harness 80 iq peasant anger and direct it outward more efficiently than any feudal system could possible do.

in feudalism you fight and die to protect your own land, and it was bad at motivating peopl to fight for somehting larger. nationalism gave normal people an incentive to kill each other that was more "rational," and democracy gave people a motivation bordering on religious strength to kill strangers.

I'm not in any way justifying anti-nationalist globalism. but nationalism did cause ww1.

The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman is quite good as well.

the eternal anglo sure is strong here

>germans hop on the colonialism train a bit late
>britshits crapping their pants
>germans want to build a railway from berlin to bagdad really bad
>connects tanzania (german colony) to a port relatively safe and close
>serbia is in the way
>for "some" reason they refuse to sell concessions
>germany needs a casus belli

Ah, one of my favorite internet lies, the "French blank cheque". While it is true the French affirmed their alliance with Russia, during the crisis they also quite literally told the Russians not to escalate hostilities with Germany. Can you spot the difference between this behavior and the one between Germany and Austria?

>France
>mentioned in the same breath as germany or austria (or even russia)
ebin

There areally alot of primary sources available. But if you hate reading the podcast "When Diplomacy Fail's" has two pretty good series about it.
But at its root WW1 was really a miscalculation

>But at its root WW1 was really a miscalculation
That's debatable - people at the helm in both Germany and Austria clearly wanted some kind of a conflict with Russia and Serbia respectively. Not to the degree they got it, and Austria might have not been primarily looking for a direct military confrontation if it could get its way with Serbia, but certainly in case of Germany an outright war.

>France
>revanchism
>Alsace lorraine
>strong interest in keeping germany down

>revanchism
yes clearly the ideology that was on the wane for years before ww1 and the ideology opposed by the cabinet and the ruling parties makes france the main culprit; as does their strong interest to keep germany down, this interest evidenced in such aggressive moves as shutting up the military hawks calling for an early mobilization, withdrawing troops away from the border, or telling russia not to do anything that might lead to a war with germany, those dastardly pierres!

>there is a defensive alliance
>sides ensure each other that they will help them in defensive war
>LITERALLY DECLARATION OF WAR

Have you actually read the Serbian response to the ultimatum?
Do you know that all of the officers that supposedly helped organize the assassination were lined up and shot after a short "court martial"?
>Serbian fucking shit
He was a citizen of Austria Hungary, and a member of a pan slavic Bosnian anarchist organization that also had Croats and Bosniaks.

...

Revanchism is a complete meme, it was a minority movement that never entered government.

Look at the actual diplomatic actions leading up to WW1, France did everything in its power to deescalate it and prevent war, short of giving in to Germany's ludicrous ultimatum of handing over several cities.

>refused to hand out assassin
>literally build monuments for him
>da serbz din du nofin it wuz jus a tereris

French cucks out for German blood, it backfired.

That would be the Franco-Prussian War
WW1 was Germany declaring war on all Europe for the lulz

The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark is a really good read and place to start, my Veeky Forums friends tell me it's the standard text for the July Crisis for UK undergrads.

Standard textbook is biased? They divided the causes into two: General and specific.
>What's important is to avoid Weimar era propaganda which is everywhere, even on this very board.
What propaganda?

I ain't doing your homework bro.

>muh scapegoat
>muh shitposting
everyone was ready for it. something was gonna happen. the only other thing you could really hope for is a less inclusive version of the same thing.

>What propaganda?
Stab-in-the-back

>good reasons for acting as they did
like fucking what?

>propaganda
the germany dindu nuffin wewuz gud bois kind
the moment the war was lost, germany literally started to rewrite and censor history, diplomacy, public opinion, media, you name it, they did it - in order to paint germany in a positive light, as the victim, everyone else as the bad guys etc.
this is no tinfoil bullshit, they had an entire office for it and everything, such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_the_Study_of_the_Causes_of_the_War

>Russia
not even joking.
If Russians didn't declare war on Austria-Hungary and let them have Serbia there would be a war but not a world war.

It is certainly hard to blame one side for starting the war, however it's easy to blame Britain for prolonging the war unnecessarily.

They were the only side that didn't have very much invested in it other than Imperial interests. At any point they could have pulled out of the war without much losses compared to France or Germany. It's especially head scratching considering how much money and resources they gave up just to break even in the war and then finally having to beg the U.S. to enter at the cost of the vast majority of their previous global grip. They actually would have lost a lot less if they just pulled out after a few years and the western front would have likely immediately collapsed and the war would be done. Whoa France is under German control big fucking deal.

Instead everything got grinded into dust and the entire Middle East got fucked up forever by Britain that we only got to see the effects of many years later gr8. Later in the war the central powers were pretty much fighting for a peace deal while the allied powers were not at all. They were fighting to grind the central powers into dust and they did. Britain got this very pointless and unnecessary goal in the end at a very large cost.

>What propaganda?
German historical policy ever since 1918 was to release tons of insightful - I mean, really, really good - material on WW1. The most important part of it was to try to make it seem that Germany was the last to fight and got punished as an example.

Never mind that Germans:
>fired first shots on Western Front(day before declaration of war and on top of it - on French soil)
>gave carte blache to A-H
>declared the war itself
>the reparations were relatively smaller to reparations Germany took from France in 1871, or Russia in 1917, with the difference being that the war wasn't fought on German land(outside of short episode of Russian invasion of East Prussia)

And most importantly that the German school of geopolitics was the reason for adoption of Schleiffen plan. They figured out that Russians will, at some point, modernise to the point where relative technological/doctrinal supremacy of German Army will be negligible just like similar supremacy of French army was a melon in Franco-Prussian war(Prussia mobilised faster and in greater numbers which let them overwhelm the French). Schleiffen plan was specifically designed, to, in face of French-Russian alliance, avoid such disaster. The typical estimates assumed the "tipping point" in Russian-German balance of power to be 1917.

Understanding this part is the key to understanding the reasons why WW1 broke out. Few years before WW1, there was the Moroccan crisis, however, seeing as French received support not only from their allies(Russia and the UK) but also Italy(still Germany's ally), Spain and the US they've backed up. In 1914 the US declared neutrality, Italy was technically a "German ally" suspiciously unwilling to fight(but they didn't outright say that they support the entente like they did around 10 years before) and Spain had no business in it. German general staff assumed that in this case - they can win that war. So they went.

However, had several other regional powers(Spain, Ottoman Empire etc. etc.) condemned Austrian-Hungarian actions against Serbia and A-H wouldn't get the carte blache and Germany wouldn't pursue the war.

The point of it is that German political and military elite didn't saw alternative to war. If the opportunities were horrible(like they were during Moroccan crisis) and they would back off and wait for another chance, but they were pretty good in 1914 so they didn't.

Time wasn't playing on Germany's favour therefore they felt that they've had to start the war.

Weimar Era bullshitery tries to go for decentralised cause. Tensions, bullshits, other powers doing their things, which is wrong. Germans had a legitimate concerns about the others, but the reason for WW1 was that they have never seen any alternative to starting a "war of Russian containment" in one way or another.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_the_Study_of_the_Causes_of_the_War

Holy fucking shit
Germans are the original Dindu Muffins
No wonder BF1 made them black

>Schleiffenplan
The guy was called "Schlieffen".

"ie", not "ei".

>French army was a melon in Franco-Prussian war
What does it mean to be a melon?

Wew lad you're totally arguing about the most important things in my post.

You seem to be under the false assumption that I want to engage in argumentation about the thread's topic at large, but I don't. Is that suboptimal? Surely. Is it illegitimate? No. There is no rule stating that a reply to a post in a thread must always tackle the main points in argumentation brought forth about the subject in the OP. Nevertheless, there's a net knowledge benefit through my post. You now know that the guy's name is written differently and that it isn't self-evident for everyone what it means for an army to be a melon.

The Great War has been inherited by us younger generations as a war almost impossible to grasp, for we can't surmise how so many countries could've thrown themselves into the fray of hostilities without foreseeing the bloodshed that was to come to them.

We only portray ourselves that war in such a pejorative light by virtue of knowing what was then to afflict all those countries. However, for a XXth century politician, the hostilities biting at the peace of Europe in August 1914 was the opportunity for the most perfect war for everyone, or so they would've thought.

From the blunders of Wilhelm II at alienating Russia, the german administration had been deathly afraid that some Russian leader might finally grace the country with industrialization, and that with their landmass and population, Russia might thieve from Germany its spot as the strongest industrial power. They'd been scheming for that long for how to neutralize France, and then strike a blow to Russia that would leave them stranded of option to industrialize. In many ways, some of these ideas are formulated in the Brest-Litvosk pact: Russia is rid of the industrial regions of Poland, and is robbed of crop-ridden Ukraine which would translate into Russia having to sacrifice their efforts to making Russia an arable economy again. Therefore, Germany didn't at all shy away from a war that might quieten revanchism in France, and would doom the Russians to another century of lack of industrialization. Von Moltke himself promoted a preventative war against Russia for as long as he was in office. Their overconfidence in the Schlieffen plan meant they that could perceive few wrongs with edging the Austrians into war, under the circumstances that Russia hadn't industrialized yet. So for the germans, it was a matter of the sooner, the better in regards to Russia.

1/?

Austria-Hungary almost felt themselves blessed by the opportunity for such a war, as they'd hoped that in shattering Serbia's borders and routing them into Belgrade, that panslavism within Austria-Hungary and in countries bordering them, could be strangled in its cradle. That war was also a war that they conceived could be their own Franco-Prussian war, in terms of what it was for Germany: a war that could unify the country around a similar fight, and would cement their authority on Bosnia, in addition to extinguishing what the very existence of Serbia instilled in the Austro-Hungarian Croats, Slovaks, Czechs...

Russia, soundly beaten in the Nippo-Russian war were forever presiding their national policies by what would allow them to recover from that humiliation. The Straits policy became an ever greater objective for them, and that entailed befriending the Slavic peoples of the Balkans. In many ways, recoiling when Germany and Austria-Hungary snarled at it to rescind their support for Serbia would've ingrained that humiliation further. They were somewhat doomed to be in that fray of warring countries from the start, with how anxious they were to assert themselves, and cleanse their 1905 debacle from their portfolio.

2/?

France, although revanchism had largely been tamed by 1914, were also confronted to the rather unpleasant dilemma of wavering on how they would treat Russia's compromising attitudes over the crisis. One on hand, relations between France and Russia had somewhat soured when France had isolated Russia on the playing-field by not backing them in the 1908 Bosnian crisis (but arguably something that saved Europe from the threat of an earlier world war), and Russia had since solicited their whole-hearted backing in the crisis to come. The idea that their alliance with Russia could be revoked utterly terrified the french, and they contorted themselves in many ways throughout August to both not be belligerent (France abstained all its border with Germany from soldiers, and told Russia not to be belligerent) but to please Russia (always tethering on the brink of mobilization).

The Ottomans, with their multi-ethnic empire are an Austro-Hungarian empire 2.0 in regards to why'd they'd fought.

And lastly, the British were rather gleeful about war that they might have their navy besting that of the very country that had tempted them into the dreadnought race, in which they would be somewhat unburdened from the land fighting. The coming war would also let them strangle the german economy by blockading them, which they certainly would've have shied away from. That doesn't make them psychopaths though: Britons felt genuinely threatened that they'd been dethroned from their seat at the top of industrialization.

So all in all, no one was a moustache-twirling villain about the war. All felt that this would be the best option they'd have to settle the threats about to afflict them, and all went with it.

Still the germans did it lol

I was 95% sure you would flush these posts by "lol france wuz revanchism and shit and dey wuz gunning 4 war lol" but you didn't. Well done. If only more posts were like this.

WW1 was started by Jews

Not the reptiloide?

youtu.be/bT81WwCix4M

Thank you so fucking much!

I do love my WW1 history, and would convulse at the idea of tainting it with inaccuracies. For measure, Action Française who were most prominent in advocating revanchism seated only 5% of the French parliament in WW1.

Revanchism did muster courage and will from the french soldiers when they were first summoned to fight, but it was irrelevant to how the french government conducted itself in August.

...

>Sarajevo[9] also has its claim to fame from being the sole city in Europe to be swarmed with giant black beasts[10] in the summer. Tourists will routinely keep their cameras at their side when visiting the city[11] for a chance at snapping a picture of these rare creatures. One historical event linked to these creatures is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand[12] in which the hand of Gavrilo Princip[13] was said to be guided by such a creature by bystanders.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarajevo

What
The
Fuck

It's real...?

That was propaganda surrounding the loss of ww1 not its start.

Where the fuck does it say that?

More famous for being BTFO by serbs desu

>giving france that much credit
but if that's the case good for them - payback for the franco-prussian war and occupation

>Whoa France is under German control big fucking deal.

and 500 years of british foreign policy is undone and britain faces a hostile european hegemony, britain didnt enter the war looking to gain, they entered the war looking to prevent

desu; it was a mixture of retard prestige between the European leaders (especially the royalty) and major French butt hurt.

Here have a meme

>major French butt hurt.
I what?

The political party advocating revanchism barely hinged on having 5% of votes to get into the French Parliament.

You'd want to skim through this to know why it was that the french were tragically unable to either back down from the hostilities, nor back them wholeheartedly.

A very complex system of military alliances created in the previous century which obligated countries to support allies in the event of a war.

This created a chain reaction of countries declaring war on each other.

Russia was humiliated after losing to the Japanese and needed to reaffirm herself as a European Great Power and the leader of the Slavic sphere; not to mention that there were geostrategic ambitions in play in regards to expanding the sphere of influence into the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire could not afford letting Russia meddle in its imperial sphere of influence and risk losing the Balkans. Also, the assassination publicly humiliated the Empire and it needed to reaffirm its hold on the region, providing an example.

Germany was politically isolated and had no other partners on the continent but Austria-Hungary. They could not afford losing them too. Austria-Hungary was in a state comparable to the US after 9/11, there was absolutely no way for them to take such a blow without a reaction and Germany had to stand with them. A fear of being surrounded by enemies that was present in Germany was only reinforced when they found out that Britain was having talks about a naval landing agreement in the Baltics, clearly antagonising Germany, due to a spy in the Russian embassy. This was the final nail in the coffin, signalling Bethmann-Hollweg that his military advisers were right and everyone truly was out to get them, giving in to the prospect of a pre-emptive strike out of fear of being in a worse position if they gave the enemy more time to act.

France had lost her position as the leading power on the continent, having been severely humiliated in 1871. They had all interest in the world to regain their position and weaken the German position and more importantly: securing their own. The Alliance with Russia was of utmost importance to them, losing it would leave them defenceless to their stronger neighbour.

The "events leading to world war one" series of articles on wikipedia is unusually extensive. Start here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1882)

A massive railway infrastructure using very complex plans for transporting soldiers and materiel to the front that could not be stopped once started without losing all momentum.

Everyone who is saying Serbia, ultimate kys

t. elementary school student

There are four simple causes. Imperialism, nationalism, militarism and the secret alliances the European countries had.

see

>actually blaming serbia
kill yourself

anyways, there's been some good book recommendations posted here already but i'd really like to recommend "The Origins of the War of 1914" by Luigi Albertini. absolutely fascinating book with incredible detail, heaps and heaps of important quotations straight from primary documents with every major figure you could possibly think of. the book has a damn near encyclopedic scope, honestly a must for WWI research.

goes from 1878(russo-turkish war, congress of berlin) to about 28 july 1914. very expensive book, try to get a PDF if you can. i also seriously recommend doing some background reading first, this book is rather heavy and assumes you know a lot of the jargon.

reminder the harlem hellfighters were the people who saved europe