The First World War

[Sadurian Mike]

I may have mentioned this on the old forum, but I like to bring it up as an example of how interpreting the same facts may lead to different conclusions without being 'right' or 'wrong'.

In History, one of the standard trope questions that will follow you from 'A' Level (GCSE even perhaps?) to University is, "Who Was Responsible for Starting the First World War". The question is designed to test knowledge of the contemporary political conditions and system of alliances, and there is really no correct answer. Do you blame Germany for pushing Austria-Hungary into invading Serbia, Russia for (over?)-reacting, France for sticking its oar in, or Austro-Hungary for invading Serbia? How about Princip for shooting Archie Duke?

So, in one seminar I blamed Belgium. Lets scroll back to 1914 in a wobbly Scooby-Doo fashion:

1. Austro-Hungary is peeved at the assassination of the Arch-Duke and demands unreasonable reparation from Serbia.
   
2. Russia tells Austria-Hungary that it will act to protect Serbia should Austro-Hungary kick off.
   
3. Serbia calls Austria-Hungary's bluff by accepting the unacceptable demands (eh?).
   
4. Germany tells Austria-Hungary that they've got its back should it invade Serbia anyway.
5. Austria-Hungary, puffed up with declining Empire hubris, moves to swat Serbia.
   
6. Russia starts to mobilise, with France activating their alliance.
   
7. Germany, knowing that Russia will take an age to mobilise (it didn't - railways helped it mobilise a lot faster), turns and decides to attack France first.
   
8. So far we have just another European conflict. Not, note, not a World War.
   
9. Germany demands transit through Belgium to invade France. Belgium refuses.
   
10. Britain, in an alliance with Belgium, activates that alliance and declares war on Germany.
    
11. The Commonwealth pile in with Britain.
    
12. The war is now Global, thanks to Belgium not allowing Germany to trample through it.*

*The first shots of the First World War were fired on 5th August 1914 by an Australian harbour battery preventing a German merchantman from escaping. The first shots by the British Army were by a colonial native soldier of the Gold Coast Regiment on 7th Augist 1914, firing at armed German police in what was then called Togoland.

So, whilst the war itself had arguable already begun, it could be argued that it was only a World War when Britain and the Commonwealth became involved.

Actually, after all these years it occurs to me that the French oversea territory at the time could also qualify France as the one responsible, a day before Britain declared. Another point of discussion.

[tetsabb]

Good to see you back amongst us, Mike. All well, I hope.

Back in the 70s, one of my Uni lecturers, John Rohl, was among the first to examine documents in German archived concerning a meeting in, IIRC, 1912,at which it was decided that they would not be ready for war until the Kiel Canal had been completed

[barbados]

I always enjoy reading your posts Mike.
I have to admit, a lot of it goes over my head but as with everything if the teller of the story is interested in the subject they can’t help but make the story, however short, interesting.

[efros]

Nice to hear from you Sadurian Mike , sorry to hear about your covid ordeal. One of my Uncles is going through a similar experience.

[amanda]

Sadurian Mike wrote:

*The first shots of the First World War were fired on 5th August 1914 by an Australian harbour battery preventing a German merchantman from escaping.

And I have been to the very end of Victoria, Australia where the historic ruins remain of the defences as part of the Point Nepean National Park. 

I think is that due to the time difference and us being ahead by a few hours, our chaps had received the news first that war had been declared. A canon is still in situ, as are the concrete bunkers and several historic noticeboards are around the place. 

It was used up until WWII as well, then fell into disuse. I have just seen on the website that as part of the Bicentennial celebrations in 1988, control was handed over to the state of Victoria and opened to the public. 

The nearby Quarantine station was opened up a bit later - this is passed first en route to the Fort. 

[crissdee]

A few years ago, I was at some military museum type thing (possibly Waltham Abbey but I can't be sure). I was idly inspecting a Pattern 1908 Sword, arguably the best sword ever issued to the British Army, and the guy showing it claimed that the first and last casualties of WW1 were struck down with examples of such a sword. This seemed a little unlikely, but some casual research (which I cba to repeat right now) seemed to confirm the fact.

[amanda]

In the cathedral here where I am a guide, is a sword from WWI, enclosed in a case high up on the wall by entrance. There is a recently added gold plaque under it that states:
Memorial to an unknown soldier, was a grave marker that originally marked where a soldier had fallen on the battlefield. Offered by the Imperial War Graves Commission to the Archbishop of the day in 1934.

[Sadurian Mike]

Jul 23, 2024 22:55:59 GMT crissdee said:

A few years ago, I was at some military museum type thing (possibly Waltham Abbey but I can't be sure). I was idly inspecting a Pattern 1908 Sword, arguably the best sword ever issued to the British Army, and the guy showing it claimed that the first and last casualties of WW1 were struck down with examples of such a sword. This seemed a little unlikely, but some casual research (which I cba to repeat right now) seemed to confirm the fact.

I'm suspicious of that one, to be honest.

The British 1908 pattern sword was carried by cavalry and some officers at the start of the war and was very rarely used. By the end of the war it was really only cavalry carrying swords, the British officer having quickly learned that the thing was pretty useless in modern combat and made you a target. Even cavalry, by this stage, had largely relegated the sword to a weapon for very rare mounted actions (such as the charge at Harbonniers). They mostly acted as mounted infantry, using mobility to occupy positions which they then held dismounted with rifle and bayonet.

If the first and last casualties of the First World War were to be killed or wounded with a British sword, it would suggest both that the casualty was of the Central Powers (Germany or Austria-Hungary) and that the attacker was a mounted British or Commonwealth cavalryman (or, even less likely, an officer using a sword).

The first casualty is usually acknowledged as a German cavalryman whose patrol entered French territory before the official declaration of war. The German cavalryman attacked a French sentry with his sword (maybe the origin of the story you heard) but was then shot dead by a French patrol responding to the incursion. The cavalryman, incidentally, also caused the first French casualty (the second casualty of the war) as he had fired his pistol at the French patrol and inflicted a wound which later killed the man.

The last casualty of the First World War is believed to be a US soldier, shot and killed by a German machine-gun as he made an insane (and likely suicidal in its true sense) run at enemy positions a minute or so before the Armistice came into effect. The 'last casualty' definition is probably debatable as men died after the Armistice, and the debate is whether this qualifies as being during the war or not (see also the Western powers' involvement in Russia in 1918/19). That open up a whole new can of worms, however.

The 'first casualty', it might be tenuously argued, was caused by a sword as the French sentry was certain attacked and undoubtedly suffered mentally from this. There is no record of his being physically wounded, however. In any case, the sword in question was German. likely the standard M98 Other Ranks Cavalry pattern. 

The last casualty, however, is a lot less easy to see as having been caused by any type of sword. With the Armistice looming, the two sides were sensibly hunkered down watching the clock tick by. The US Generals (for reasons outside this post) ordered their men to press on anyway, but this was largely ignored or circumvented by the commanders actually at the front. Certainly no British cavalryman would have been charging on his horse at the enemy at 11am on the 11th November 1918.

[jenny]

Your run-up to WW1 is particularly interesting to me in light of current conflicts and political shiftings in both Eastern and Western Europe. Let's hope the dominoes don't fall in a similar way this time.

[Sadurian Mike]

Jul 24, 2024 23:12:12 GMT jenny said:

Your run-up to WW1 is particularly interesting to me in light of current conflicts and political shiftings in both Eastern and Western Europe. Let's hope the dominoes don't fall in a similar way this time.

It is a very basic snapshot. 

The actual situation was a lot more complex and included situations such as the two Balkans Wars (1912-1913) which involved Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro (the Balkan League) attacking the waning Ottoman Empire and taking terriritory, and then a dissatisfied Bulgaria fighting Romania, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and the Ottomans. This led to Serbia expanding and looking to expand even further. Austria-Hungary was concerned about a possible Serbian invasion of Austrian-ruled Bosnia, and this was one of the reasons behind the subsequent crisis.

Given that the Serbian question rumbled on through to the next year, and also given the direct link between the 1912 War and the outbreak of the First World War, it might be argued that the 1914-18 War was actually an extension and expansion of the Balkans Wars.

That whole period of history is a buzzing maze of political and diplomatic intrigues, and is a fascinating study that is often overlooked because of the later events.

[Sadurian Mike]

Having just typed all that, it strikes me that Serbia's position as another potential cuplrit for starting the First World War is strengthene if we take into account its desire for expansion.

[jenny]

It's not as if the region Serbia is now in was particularly peaceful in the rest of the 20th century.

[alexanderhoward]

I read an article once about the French army at the beginning of the century - their doctrine was that soon they would march and reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. The German action then looks like a pre-emptive strike.

I am always struck by how the Schlieffen Plan was so much a part of German military doctrine, that it conditioned the general staff to consider it inevitable - so it became inevitable.

I am not a historian though.

[Sadurian Mike]

Jul 25, 2024 17:54:04 GMT alexanderhoward said:

I read an article once about the French army at the beginning of the century - their doctrine was that soon they would march and reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. The German action then looks like a pre-emptive strike.

I am always struck by how the Schlieffen Plan was so much a part of German military doctrine, that it conditioned the general staff to consider it inevitable - so it became inevitable.

I am not a historian though.

Just about every nation involved had compelling reasons why they got involved (although possibly not ones that stand up to scrutiny using modern standards):

• Britain needed to tackle growing German power on the Continent and at sea. It also had commitments to protect Belgium.
  
• France wanted to revenge itself aganst Germany for the Franco-Prussian War, as well as tackling increasing German power.
  
• Russia had been backed into a corner over Serbia, having lost influence when the Balkans Wars rearranged the political landscape, and pinning its hopes on Serbia to becoming a powerful ally in the region.
  
• Austria-Hungary was seeing its Imperial ambitions in the Balkans falling apart, and needed to show that it would fight to protect its ambitions.
• Germany was a new country flexing its muscles and eager to become a political main player both within Europe and abroad.
• Italy, another new country, was trying to acquire territory that it considered to be ethnically and cultural Italian but was held by Austria-Hungary.

You could even add the USA to that list, as the war was a catalyst that brought the country from a 'meh' power to being a global powerhouse, both industrially and politically. Claiming that this was a reason to go to war might be pushing things, though, as I think it even took the Americans by surprise.