Talk:Causes of World War I/Archive 1

message: I appreciate the attempt to summarize in the introduction, but what exactly does this mean, "The top governing of the monarchies"? I don't think that is a clear explanation.Peregrine981 14:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
: Answer: I agree (I wrote the summary). Perhaps it is a bad header...I meant the complex governmental relationship between the existing monarchy and the emerging "democratic" governing. Do you understand what I mean?
At the moment I do not however how to formulate a better entry - please have a try at it! Regards, Dennis : Dna-Dennis 14:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: This article is kind of a mess.  There's a lot of useful specific material here, but a lot of general statements that aren't really defensible (calling the dominant forces in the Third Republic "left wing" is most certainly wrong, for instance).  More than that, though, this article seems completely disorganized.  There's no logical order to it, and it doesn't give anywhere near a competent narrative of the July Crisis, which should be at least one of the key elements of an article on the origins of World War I.  And why on earth is there a section about the Congress of Vienna?
I would suggest a pretty substantial rewriting, and even more so a reorganization of the article.  I would suggest that the article begin with a summary of European diplomatic history starting with the unification of Germany in 1871.  The level of detail would be very light for 1871-1890, rather more detailed for 1890-1905, quite detailed for 1905-1914, and extremely detailed for June 28 - August 4 1914.  After this material, we could return to discussion of various ideological, structural, and so forth, causes of the war, and have a discussion of the historiography.  I'd be happy to take a gander at reworking the thing, but I'd like to hear what the people who've worked on it have to say before I do anything. john k 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think a major revision of this article is in order 

message: Shouldn't there be a small section on the Balkan wars and other events in the Balkans that are part of the causes of the war? Possibly also Turkey's problems, and rise of Serbia could be put here. The "first bullet" was fired in the Balkans, after all, so it's a pretty important region to all of this. (ie what I'm proposing is adding a Balkan wars section under specific events).
Secondly, I think that Russian domestic policies should also be mentioned (similarly to the Franch policies). The internal problems in Russia (strikes, demonstrations, etc 1905-1914) led Russia to take a more aggressive stand to suppress these problems. (in short, here I propose adding a Russia section below "French Domestic Politics") --HJV 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balkan Wars & Russian Dom. Pol.

message: Would anyone happen to know what is the name of the article in Wikipedia that deals with this meeting? It would be nice to have the meeting included in this article. They (zee Germans) had a war council in December 1912, where (among all other things) Tirpitz said that Germany would be ready for a war in 18 months time, as the Kiel canal and the u-boot programme will be finished by then. "Surprisingly" 18 months from the meeting was, in fact, July 1914 :)--HJV 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "decision was made" -- pretty strong statement. What's the exact quote?  Most historians say he discussed England as a likely future enemy. That is the sort of planning every country does. See John C. G. Röhl, The Kaiser and His Court. Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany, Cambridge 1994, see Rjensen 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potsdam war council 1912

message: Hello all, I'm going to start working on a new version of this article at User:John Kenney/Causes of World War I.  I'll let you know when I start to get it towards being reasonable. john k 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting a temp article 

message: I'm just an ip address, but I find the article as a whole very dissatisfying. I think the primary reasons for that are: 1) a much too flexible understanding of the notion of "cause" and too much deflection of attention to any number of things that might have prevented the war if they had been different and/or gave it its particular character but certainly weren't "causes" per se; 2) too much attention to the historiography and debates that are academic in a metaphorical as well as literal sense. The result is a lot of text that says too little for trying to say too much. Obviously, the July crisis is the place to start with the revision. The Austrian heir apparent was assassinated in Sarajevo. The Austrians suspected Serbian complicity, if for no other reason than where the assassination took place, and issued an ultimatum. Serbia refused the ultimatum and the Austrians declared war. From there, a system of interlocking alliances and preemptive strategies did the rest. May 29, 2006.
::well that is ONE interpretation. The problem is that it does not explain why Britain and France would take millions of casualties over one more in a long series of episodes in the Balkans. (of the USA for that matter). Rjensen 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the historiography note; it is quite important and, I think, good. One thing I would like to see in a rewrite is a more comprehensive account of the nationalism issue. It really is a complex issue that is very deep indeed, which had an equally deep impact upon the entire situation. Maximilli 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm in a bit of a minority, but I don't really agree that a complete reworking is required. Explaining the origins in an overly chronilogical way gets very confused, so I think that making clear distinctions between the different strands of cause by type, rather than time is simpler. This way new additions can be added fairly easily without jumbling the article's chronology, which is often a problem in these articles. This article presently lays out pretty much all the main arguments in an equal manner, and then discusses the debate between these arguments and the historians who presented them, which seems to me to be the most NPOV way of doing things. And there is now a fairly detailed discussion of the July Crisis, so I don't see what the problem is. The section headings, ideological, structural, and specific, may be a bit confused, but I find it hard to group them differently. Oh, and if you think this article is bad, just wait till you see the Causes of World War II.Peregrine981 07:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: During the years since "Evidence in the case" was written, it was revealed that important sections of the Yellow and Orange Books were falsified creating a false timeline and to place war guilt on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  While the British did not falsify their documents in the same way, they were taken in by the false Russian and French statements and included certain assumptions or excuses in their footnotes when the timeline would not quite fit together due to the French and Russian lies.  Significant revelations bearing on war guilt continued through world war II as more Entente suppressed documents were captured or revealed, perhaps most significantly, the signed confession of the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence to ordering the hit on Franz Ferdinand which he submitted to the Serbian Government in exile before his execution. After World War II, the release of suppressed documents slowed to a trickle. So, early works like Beck's may have some place in the historiography section, but are not that valuable for the general article.  Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page before making edits.Werchovsky (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see "j'accuse" was also written in 1915 and anonymously. Albertini is an excellent source; with 2200 pages, excellent citations and some interviews with the key players after the dust settled, reading it through is indispensable for an accurate and detailed understanding of the "Origins of the World War", and you will be happy to learn that he places primary responsibility on Germany, although he died before he could write his concluding chapter.  Again, I recommend you discuss your edits in advance on the talk page.Werchovsky (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, this does need a complete rewrite 

message: I deleted "Germany was hopelessly outguned" & added this:
:"This ignores the self-evident fact Kriegsmarine had narrowed the gap by nearly half, and the Royal Navy had long felt (reasonably enough) a need to be stronger than any two potential oppenents; the United States Navy was in a period of growth, making the German gains very ominous, indeed."
I believe Keegan, among others, has mentioned the "2 opponent" standard. Sounds to me like somebody is a Ferguson disciple--or didn't do enough research.  Trekphiler 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most scholars would agree that the naval race was a major cause of Anglo-German rivalry and suspicion, but I think that many have also come to the conclusion that in the Bethmann years, at least, England had already pretty clearly decisively won the naval race, and it was clear that Tirpitz would never achieve the ratios he believed he needed for the "risk theory" to work. john k 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval arms race 

message: New International Encyclopedia published in 1926 the fact that the Bagdad Railroad was one of the leading causes of World War One.  "Editors" and "contributors" to Wikipedia have erased that fact from the articles that relate to the War.  They've mangled history.  No article related to World War One should include a picture of Napoleon Bonaparte who had been in his casket for 85 years.  The War was caused by people who were alive in 1900, not by people who were alive in 1800.  Colonialism and expansionism by Germany were fundamental causes of the War.  GhostofSuperslum 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Bagdad Railway contains a verbatim copy of the passage that is in New International Encyclopedia (published in 1926).  GhostofSuperslum 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: its hard to find a historian in last 50 years who thinks Baghdad RR issue was a main issue....few even think it was a minor one. The documents were not open in 1926 when an old encyclopedia repeated the notion that the British were worried about the RR. Documents show they seldom considered it a major factor.
in last 50 years or so historians are agreed the major powers SETTLED the Baghdad RR issue before the war started, therefore it was not a cause. Specific mention - "Some of the optimism should be attributed to the willingness of the German government to compose long-standing differences. ...and in June 1914 a settlement was achieved over the Baghdad railway." from The Coming of the First World War. by R. J. W. Evans (british) and Hartmut Pogge Von Strandman (German) - Oxford UP 1990. Page 16Rjensen 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The people who were alive in 1900 to 1920 knew more about the worrisome changes that the Bagdad Railway created.  Later (so-called) "historians" of the last 50 years cannot assess the situation more adroitly than the people who were alive in 1900 to 1920. They had determined that a grave threat to world peace was being built.  Later (so-called) "historians" should go and take a long walk on a short pier.  GhostofSuperslum 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Railroad issue was settled before the war started and it was not a cause of the war. The people writing at the time did NOT have access to the secret diplomatic and military documents in which policy makers discussed the issue. Those documents are NOW open so historians now have a much better understanding of what the policy makers thought at the time. Rjensen 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: even if the issues of the railroad were settled prior to the outbreak of war it does not mean that the whole issue was not a contributing factor to the war - at the very least the railroad caused friction between the great powers in the years leading up to the war and contributed to the uncertainty and the desire for the different sides to arm. There are so many issues here that are currently being discussed and it is distressing to see that reference (and references)of these issues has been systematically removed from wikipedia. Further, even if the issue of the railroad was settled by politicians, the fact that it was kept secret from the public means that public misconception of the issues would have been a conributary factor to their willingness to accept war, regards, sbandrews (t) 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mangled history

message: For the new section, I have two titles to suggest, either 'Geopolitics', or 'Ottoman sucession'. Both of which are currently missing from the article and both of which allow for a balanced discussion of the Baghdad Railway, while at the same time keeping the title neutral. Comments? sbandrews (t) 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Jastrow book. He was an archaeologist and most of the book deals with the Hittite Empire 2000+ years before, and Ottoman history before 1880. The period since 1900 is based on a few magazine articles. He was unaware of the solution the main powers reached in 1914. Rjensen 13:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with Jastrow's unawareness of the diplomatic "solution" which seems to centre on the financing of the RR, which is quite alright to delineate.  I think that a section on "Geopolitics" is appropriate, to address the economic and military rivalry and important strategy of access to oil and trade. Bcameron54 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good, we can prominantly state that the financing of the RR was settled, I think we are all happy with that, rjensen? sbandrews (t) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  time to take up the pen.  I will draft here a proposed section in a while.  Bcameron54 05:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:   GEOPOLITICS:  
  German rivalry to the colonial British Empire in industry and trade, and the introduction of oil.  Are these suitable items to frame a section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcameron54 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: The main WWI article has been flagged as overlong - we are asked to move material through here, the July crisis section looks a good candidate, being longer in WWI than here, comments? sbandrews (t) 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: swapped them over sbandrews (t) 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal - Main WWI article

message: This section need expanding/merging/deleting? A better title? What does it mean? Is is encyclopaedic? sbandrews (t) 10:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Causes of World War I#Contemporary justifications, politico-moral]]

message: In the July crisis and Declaration of War section, it is stated that Austria-Hungary declared war on July 28. In the Web of Alliances section, the declaration of war date is July 30.  Which is it?Nschoem 21:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well spotted, its July 28th according to Henig, sbandrews (t) 21:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting data

message: Currently we have:
*The Serbians, relying on the hope of support from Russia, ordered mobilization and gave an equivocal response which led to Austrian rejection, and to a declaration of war on July 28. The Russians mobilized in support of their Serbian allies. 
This reads like Serbia was prepared to risk an Austrian attack - Henig (1989) page 25 says that this is "not definitely established" - is Henig wrong? sbandrews (t) 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, thanks for that, Btw, due to a reorganisation, your edit is now in the main WWI article, (explanation above) sbandrews (t) 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: indeed the Kaiser thought the reply was good enough (Henig 1989 p29) so I think equivocal is too hard a word, but its hard to find a better one.. sbandrews (t) 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Veiled?  I'm not sure what that means.  Basically, the Austrians mostly agreed to most of the conditions, but rejected the one about Austrian officials investigating the crime in Serbia.  On some of the others, reservations were expressed.  I'm not sure what one word gives the best sense of this, but "equivocal" seems more or less correct to me. john k 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: veiled is the word henig uses - not me. Who else uses equivocal? sbandrews (t) 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Word choice is not an issue which has to be sourced, in that it's basically one of paraphrasing, which we are allowed to do.  I don't think the term "veiled reply" clearly makes sense unless it is further explained. john k 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: essentially my point with "equivocal reply", well perhaps I'll try rephrasing it more. sbandrews (t) 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 28th

message: In the (now) rather muddled 'origins of war' section it mentions 'delays and misinderstandings'. Delays, yup that's ok, but can someone tell me what the main misunderstandings were, regards, sbandrews (t) 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, many thanks, though would you agree that if Albertini's analysis is correct the latter two are better described as lies/deception than misunderstandings? sbandrews (t) 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications

message: Treaties allying Russia and Serbia are mentioned in several places, what treaty is that exactly?--Loje 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, Russia and Serbia were certainly allys, but perhaps there was no specific treaty - this is why this article needs inline citations - I put a fact tag next to one - regards, sbandrews (t) 12:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there was no formal alliance between Serbia and Russia. john k 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russo-Serbian Alliance?

message: I'm highly skeptical of the contention that the Great Powers were going to accede to such an infringement of sovereignty as compulsory arbitration, much less that Germany would start a general war to stop it from happening.  A source to the effect that such a determination was expected at the convention of 1915 seems called for.--Loje 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, in fact the lead/lede could do with a general expansion and tidy up, probable best to base it on the introduction to any of the classic texts - it could comfortably be twice as long as it now is, sbandrews (t) 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hague Edits

message: There are too many errors and bias in this section.  I will move it to the discussion page soon unless someone has the inclination to repair it.  I place my comments below the offending sections:
Under the political direction of its first Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, Germany secured its new position in Europe by an alliance with Austria-Hungary and a diplomatic understanding with Russia.
 --->This is misleading in that several treaties and amendments are being referenced and the implication of the word "understanding" is that
 there was no treaty between Russia and Germany which is false.  Its better just to specifically state the treaties by name, date and contracting parties.
Bismarck began pursuing alliances and peace treaties. He made peace with almost every nation in Europe except France.
 --->Exactly the opposite it true.  The Treaty of Frankfurt was signed with France in 1871.  It was not necessary to make peace with any other
 nations because Germany was not at war with any European Powers until 1914 (except for a few days with France in January 1871).
 --->Nations make peace.  Chancellors do not.  There is a better way of saying this.
He feared greatly that a war might destroy the newborn nation he had created in the 1860s. 
 --->Germany was formed in 1871!
By the time of Wilhelm I's death, a system of alliances kept a tight peace in Europe.
 --->  The Balkans had a pattern of rebellions and wars that contradict the "tight peace" statement. Take for example the Serbian-Bulgarian war of 1885-6.
The ascension of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 brought to the German throne a young ruler who, despite his rash diplomatic judgment, was determined to direct policy himself. After the 1890 elections, in which the centre and left parties made major gains (and partly because of his disaffection at inheriting the Chancellor who had guided his grandfather for most of his career), Wilhelm engineered Bismarck's resignation.
 --->This is far too simplistic and argumentative.  
Much of the fallen Chancellor's work was undone in the following decades. Wilhelm failed to renew the 1887 Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, 
 --->The treaty as written was unworkable and in conflict with Germany's other obligations.
   William II and Nicholas II subsequently signed a much more favorable treaty to Germany at Bjorkoe; one that was not in conflict with Germany's
 commitments.  If one talks of letting the Reinsurance Treaty lapse, one must mention that it was later replaced, if only for a short time.
presenting republican France with the opportunity to conclude a full alliance with the Russian Empire in 1891-94. Between 1898 and 1900, Wilhelm undertook the creation of a German navy capable of threatening Britain's century-old naval mastery, 
 ----->Germany's navy was never capable of threatening Britain's naval mastery.  This needs to be toned down.
prompting the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904. 
 ---->I note Wikipedia states, and I believe with some validity, that it was the impending Russo-Japanese War that prompted the Entente Cordiale
 and no mention of Germany's naval construction program is made.  Please provide a footnote supporting the causality.
In 1907, the alliances was expanded to include Russia, forming the Triple Entente.
 ----->An entente and an alliance are different things. The dates cited for the formation of the two ententes are the dates that the Powers
 reconciled their Colonial Empire differences.  It was not until a series of letters were exchanged that the Ententes took on characteristics
 similar to those of a military alliance, most notably the November 1912 Cabon-Grey letter laying out Britain's commitment to defend the North
 Sea and the French Northern Coast.  You may want to discuss the dates over which the Entente evolved into a military understanding rather than
 just mentioning the date on which colonial differences were resolved.
 Also, please note the lack of agreement between subject and verb in the phrase "the alliances was"; this adds to the confusion.
Werchovsky 07:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise of William II section seems unscholarly; flawed; factual errors 

message: Under the political direction of its first Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, Germany secured its new position in Europe by an alliance with Austria-Hungary and a diplomatic understanding with Russia. Bismarck began pursuing alliances and peace treaties. He made peace with almost every nation in Europe except France. He feared greatly that a war might destroy the newborn nation he had created in the 1860s. By the time of Wilhelm I's death, a system of alliances kept a tight peace in Europe.
The ascension of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 brought to the German throne a young ruler who, despite his rash diplomatic judgment, was determined to direct policy himself. After the 1890 elections, in which the centre and left parties made major gains (and partly because of his disaffection at inheriting the Chancellor who had guided his grandfather for most of his career), Wilhelm engineered Bismarck's resignation.
Much of the fallen Chancellor's work was undone in the following decades. Wilhelm failed to renew the 1887 Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, presenting republican France with the opportunity to conclude a full alliance with the Russian Empire in 1891-94. Between 1898 and 1900, Wilhelm undertook the creation of a German navy capable of threatening Britain's century-old naval mastery, prompting the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904. In 1907, the alliances was expanded to include Russia, forming the Triple Entente.
Werchovsky 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II 

message: There appears to be some overlap between sections Causes_of_World_War_I#Arms_Race and Causes_of_World_War_I#Anglo.E2.80.93German_naval_race .  These sections should probably be consolidated, and coordinated with articles High Seas Fleet and Fleet Acts... AnonMoos 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate naval sections?