We say the war was going to happen no matter what. Yet How many large wars was there between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI? Sure single nations fought other nations, but for the most part the majority of europe was safe from conflict. Wars where either swift, or they where simply settled by the ruling elite.
It is quite easy not to have war. WWI was difficult to stop once the ball got rolling, for the mindset was not "we have to help our allies," it was "if we stop, we will never get the offensive we need to win."
Germany planned the July Crisis well, French diplomats on a voyage in the Baltic, Russia seemingly left out of the talks, and a swift easy to handle deadline for the Serbians. Of course all went to hell after that, once mobilization began none of the generals wanted to stop. The military thinking of the day made it impossible for them to stop. If you want to avoid WWI you need to find a fix prior to mobilization.
To me that says changing the German attitude toward diplomacy. The First Moroccan Crisis showed to Germany that international talks did not work. All a nation had to do was be backed up by an ally, and if done quickly they could do as they wished. France was easily able to get what they wanted, without telling the rest of the world, and once they did it was more of a "What are you gonna do about it?" kind of thing.
If you want peace, then diplomacy must not be seen as a failing option. Say what one wants of Germany but they often encouraged diplomatic talks over land, disputes, and many things. Sue they will go to war when they feel it is important, but too often I see Germany painted as the warmongering scourge, to France's noble attempts at survial. One cannot blame Germany for doing the same thing, that France did to get what they wanted.
It is somewhat up there with people saying Japan is wicked and evil for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, when they were trumpeted as military masterminds after doing the same thing to Port Arthur.
It is quite easy not to have war. WWI was difficult to stop once the ball got rolling, for the mindset was not "we have to help our allies," it was "if we stop, we will never get the offensive we need to win."
Germany planned the July Crisis well, French diplomats on a voyage in the Baltic, Russia seemingly left out of the talks, and a swift easy to handle deadline for the Serbians. Of course all went to hell after that, once mobilization began none of the generals wanted to stop. The military thinking of the day made it impossible for them to stop. If you want to avoid WWI you need to find a fix prior to mobilization.
To me that says changing the German attitude toward diplomacy. The First Moroccan Crisis showed to Germany that international talks did not work. All a nation had to do was be backed up by an ally, and if done quickly they could do as they wished. France was easily able to get what they wanted, without telling the rest of the world, and once they did it was more of a "What are you gonna do about it?" kind of thing.
If you want peace, then diplomacy must not be seen as a failing option. Say what one wants of Germany but they often encouraged diplomatic talks over land, disputes, and many things. Sue they will go to war when they feel it is important, but too often I see Germany painted as the warmongering scourge, to France's noble attempts at survial. One cannot blame Germany for doing the same thing, that France did to get what they wanted.
It is somewhat up there with people saying Japan is wicked and evil for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, when they were trumpeted as military masterminds after doing the same thing to Port Arthur.
