The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Most Responsible Countries for the First World War

Well?

  • 2nd - Germany, 3rd - Serbia, 4th - Russia

    Votes: 23 16.5%
  • 2nd - Germany, 3rd - Russia, 4th - Serbia

    Votes: 14 10.1%
  • 2nd - Serbia, 3rd - Germany, 4th - Russia

    Votes: 18 12.9%
  • 2nd - Serbia, 3rd - Russia, 4th - Germany

    Votes: 15 10.8%
  • 2nd - Russia, 3rd - Germany, 4th - Serbia

    Votes: 11 7.9%
  • 2nd - Russia, 3rd - Serbia, 4th - Germany

    Votes: 11 7.9%
  • All of them share the blame equally

    Votes: 21 15.1%
  • I have different opinion(s)

    Votes: 26 18.7%

  • Total voters
    139

BooNZ

Banned
Serbia is primary -- its secret police supported a terrorist group and failed to control them

Austria is most definitely second

Russia is third, as it did not have to mobilize (it chose to protect its little Orthodox brother, but it didn't have to)

Germany is fourth, as it did indeed invade Belgium and definitely didn't have to do that, and it could have pressured the Austrians to find a less drastic course when it became clear that Russia was going to mobilize

France and Britain share little responsibility for this Guns of August although France could have made it clear to Russia that it would not support mobilization over Serbia (and thus inevitable war with Germany)

of the powers at war in August 1914, the British share the least responsibility, having done everything it could to make it clear that invading Belgium meant war. The only really innocent power is Belgium, who got invaded merely because they were in the way (and of course little Luxembourg, they too were speed bumps in the road to France, but at least Luxembourg didn't suffer much for it)

Mostly agree with the above, except for the following:

It was not entirely clear to anyone the invasion of Belgium meant Britain would enter the war - or conversely, that Britain would otherwise not get involved. France had armed and financed a rogue state leading into the war and together with Russia effectively gave that rogue state a blank cheque following the assassination.
 
It's kind of an odd question because there's so much blame to go around. How do you go about assigning blame to Britain for not formally allying with France and Russia which actually ended up embolding both sides in the years leading to the July Crisis? Austria, Russia, and Serbia couldn't really afford to back down without being humiliated internationally and internally... or the fact that once everything started moving nobody lifted a finger to stop it (except debatably Edward Grey, but even was rather halfhearted). There's more than enough blame to go around without assigning tiers.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY!


Crowd: *groans* Ancient Aliens? Again?!

Me: *laughs heartily* No, no, that would be much too silly!

Crowd: Oh, what a relie--

Me: It was time travelling space Nazis!

Crowd: KILL 'IM!!!
 
I HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY!


Crowd: *groans* Ancient Aliens? Again?!

Me: *laughs heartily* No, no, that would be much too silly!

Crowd: Oh, what a relie--

Me: It was time travelling space Nazis!

Crowd: KILL 'IM!!!

If the future were to get bad enough that space Nazis could get access to a time machine, I don't see why they'd feel the need to use it, as they're clearly doing perfectly well for themselves already.
 
I would argue Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Russia were all equally responsible for starting the war.

Serbia pretty much turned a blind eye to the Black Hand, allowing an international crisis to start when they assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And add the fact that members of the Serbian government fully supported terrorist organizations designed to stir the pot in Austria-Hungary and you get a recipe for disaster.

Austria-Hungary intentionally sought out a way to exploit the crisis rather than end it. They weren't looking for peace at all...the government was determined to start a war with Serbia in response to the assassination, and Germany's unconditional support only made it more likely that war would break out.

And that leads to Germany...Germany decided to get involved in the crisis and pretty much ensure that war was inevitable by granting Austria a blank cheque. You don't solve an international crisis by telling one of the nations involved "do whatever the hell you want...we've got your back no matter what."

And Russia decided to turn what would have been a Third Balkan War into an inevitable World War by mobilizing and threatening war with Austria, with the full knowledge that Germany and France would end up getting involved as a result.

None of this was going to end well...and the leaders of all four nations frankly didn't care. They each thought that war was something to desire at this point, and when logic like that prevails, it shouldn't be a surprise that war ends up being the eventual outcome.
 

It's

Banned
Germany was the only country who by itself could have stopped the war starting. The others were either too weak or reacting to German actions (and those of its allies)
 

RavenMM

Banned
Germany was the only country who by itself could have stopped the war starting. The others were either too weak or reacting to German actions (and those of its allies)

Russia not mobilizing could have stopped it....
 

jahenders

Banned
There's a lot of truth to that. Smaller countries may start wars, or contribute to their growth/expansion, but they only become world wars if they big powers get involved.

That being said, the real responsible countries for WW1 are:
1) Russia
2) Germany
3) France

Austria and Serbia started a stupid 'dust up', but it wouldn't have become more than another Balkans War if Russia didn't agree to fight for Serbia vs Austria and Germany egg Austria on and agree to attack Russia too. Even if it stopped there, you'd have the Greater Balkans War. France's alliance with Russia, Germany's invasion of Belgium, and UK's entangling alliances made it near-global.

No, that's wasn't the question. Wars happened on regular occasion between 1815 and 1914. Only one of them became a world war. Tiny Serbia and Austria in the Balkans literally by definition cannot cause a world war. Japan and Russia couldn't in 1904. The Boers couldn't in 1899. The Americans couldn't in 1861. The Ottomans couldn't in either 1911 or 1912. All these wars going off without major consequences, and yet Austria manages to win the prize?

Only the biggest Powers can be responsible for world wars.
 
1st: Serbia, for believing the Austro-Hungarian Empire was as ripe for the picking as the Ottoman Empire had been a few years earlier and for backing the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir.
2nd: Germany, for preparing for and desiring a war with Russia that they saw as unavoidable. Also for seeing the crisis as the opportunity to strike before Russia modernised and invading neutral Belgium.
3rd: Russia, for resenting being out manoeuvered by Austro-Hungary over Bosnia-Herzegovina and for fearing being seen as weak after being defeated by Japan.
4th: Austro-Hungary, for annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina and, although they had a legitimate reason for doing so, they did issue the ultimatum to Serbia.
5th: France, for wanting revenge for their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and for seeking the return of Alsace-Lorraine.
 
I would argue Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Russia were all equally responsible for starting the war.

Serbia and Austria can't possibly be responsible for a world war for the reason previously stated - between them they were less than 5% of the world GDP. It is impossible to imagine that such small powers could cause such a great event. It's like saying a truck accident on the freeway caused a California earthquake. What happened was their war triggered a deeper, larger, underlying tension which had nothing to do with either Austria or Serbia directly.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of truth to that. Smaller countries may start wars, or contribute to their growth/expansion, but they only become world wars if they big powers get involved.

That being said, the real responsible countries for WW1 are:
1) Russia
2) Germany
3) France

Yes, Austria and Serbia must be set aside on the principle that they are too small to cause the effect of global catastrophe, regardless of any facts of any war they might get into.

From there, it gets stickier, because once the Third Balkans War is set aside, then the search focuses in on the competing blocs - Entente vs. Central Powers, and the murky nature of the relations between Britain, France, and Russia come to the fore, (the alliance relation between Germany and Austria being well understood).
 
1) Woodrow Wilson
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) Woodrow Wilson

Game, set, match. The most univerisally loathed person on AH.com gets the blame for it as he should.
 
Yes, Austria and Serbia must be set aside on the principle that they are too small to cause the effect of global catastrophe, regardless of any facts of any war they might get into.

From there, it gets stickier, because once the Third Balkans War is set aside, then the search focuses in on the competing blocs - Entente vs. Central Powers, and the murky nature of the relations between Britain, France, and Russia come to the fore, (the alliance relation between Germany and Austria being well understood).

By this logic, you may as well condemn Britain the most, as they did the most to expand the battlefield. When you rule a quarter of the planet, can it ever be a world war without you?
 
By this logic, you may as well condemn Britain the most, as they did the most to expand the battlefield. When you rule a quarter of the planet, can it ever be a world war without you?

Because that's two things. (1) Did the British "do the most" to expand the battlefield and (2) what is the precise relationship between the existence of a world war and owning a quarter of the earth?
 
Top