The Great War - WWI war goals

All, We probably have had this before.

What is rather confusing is the war goals of the combatants prior to the outbreak and for the 1914 months.

There are a few explanations to this of course.

The lack of stated war goals could easily be as WWI might have been seen as a continuation of the wars of nobility fighting nobility, using country resources. In essence: a war just for the hell of it.

No national war, no total war, no peoples war. Just the usual wars.

If we look at possible war goals, we might see:

AH:
dismembering Serbia
Knocking Russia back with some decades.
They could not hope to 'conquer' Russia and what would 'conquer mean in this context?

Germany:
Isolate France - but a war should not be needed for that
Knock Russia back ?

Italy:
Grabbing Trentino. That I can understand. that is clearly spelled out

Russia:
Promote slav entity?

It does become a bit fuzzy.

Let us look at the obvious one's:

France:
Take back A-L from Germany
Promote disunity of Germany - back to small city state

AH:
Secure Silicia
Dominate Romania
Make Bulgaria a vassal
Tell Italy to not sob after Trentino and the rest of the Balkans.
Occupy Ukraine (????)

Germany:
Grab Northern France and Belgium - unite the Ruhr
Occupy the channel ports - make UK interference difficult
Settle the Baltic - St. Petersburg, Riga, etc etc

If these were real goals, and were pursued, we could have seen a different WWI - maybe?

In the good tradition of this site, could we list war goals and the consequences of pursuing these?

The above is still fuzzy to me

Ivan
 
The reality is there were no "war goals" in WWI. By that I mean what each country wanted changed as the war progressed, which is not atypical. Britain did not go to war to seize German colonies, but that is what happened. German war aims morphed throughout the war. For all countries, war aims became more and more as the war went on as only bigger and bigger "prizes" could justify the increasingly staggering cost of the war in blood and treasure. Any listing of war aims would have to reflect this shifting pattern, the only country I can think of who had relatively specific aims and stuck to them was Japan, who wanted the German concessions in China and as much of the German Pacific territory they could grab.
 
Right about that, however when Russia declared war on Germany and A-H the Ottomans were not in the war, control of the Straits was something the Russians had wanted "forever", but until the Ottomans joined the war it was not a war aim. Additionally, the Russians knew the only way they would get this would be if it was awarded to them as part of a peace settlement after victory they had zero ability to do this with their own resources.
 
I agree with sloreck; even though we generally understand that the belligerents of WWI were clueless on almost every level, we still can fail to comprehend the degree to which they flew by the seat of their pants. It's a pity BlondieBC was banned, because he had a lot to say about the general lack of war plans on both sides.
 
To have actual war aims, you need to know that you are going to war and preparate for years. In summer 1914 no one in Europe had a world War in mind, except the usual 90 years old hawks. Most leaders and military planners just made stuff up as they went along, they lacked the resources and training for a world War, let alone the mindset. Even regarding the schliefen plan, we aren't even sure whether it was an actual war plan or a way for the German military to get more funding
 
the only country I can think of who had relatively specific aims and stuck to them was Japan, who wanted the German concessions in China and as much of the German Pacific territory they could grab.
But we should also take into account the fact that the Japanese just jumped on the possessions of the country they thought lacked the ability to put up a real fight, they saw an opportunity and they took it, but Japan really didn't have any hostility towards Germany before the start of the war
 
Prior to WW1 no country thought in terms of concrete, defined overall war goals and had a defined overall war plan to achieve; Politicians and Military officers all thought in terms of campaign plans and what could be achieved with such plans.

Germany had a vague fear that by 1917 railway building in Russia would make the Double Entente unbeatable, so make a campaign plan around defeating France then turning on Russia. Similarly Britain had a vague fear of German hegemony on the Continent, so made a campaign plan to assist the French in their anti-German/CP alliance with Russia. However none of the parties had good plans for mobilising manpower, financing a long war etc etc etc, they tended to react to outcomes of their/the enemy's campaigns and go into the next round of campaign planning.
 
The only solid wargoal for France was recovering Alsace-Lorraine.
Aside from that, multiple ideas were floated, such as annexing or creating a puppet Rhenish state.
I am not sure if France would have regarded completely disintegrating Germany would have been possible, but spinning off Bavaria and maybe the other South German realms could have been envisioned.
 
But we should also take into account the fact that the Japanese just jumped on the possessions of the country they thought lacked the ability to put up a real fight, they saw an opportunity and they took it, but Japan really didn't have any hostility towards Germany before the start of the war
Yes they had, remember the Triple Intervention?
 
"War goal" implies that anyone knew what was going on or had anything resembling a coherent plan. There was nothing of the sort, even before we get into the virulent disagreements with the countries themselves and the way outlooks changed along with the war itself.

In term of specific goals in 1914?
Russia wanted the straits and to support Serbia.
Austria wanted to teach Serbia a lesson and have a "short victorious war" to revitalize the faltering dual monrchy.
Germany wanted to break her encirclement, either by seeing the triple Entente broken or by ensuring they were no longer a threat- Russian industrial growth was a massive concern for them and there was a general consensus that the Russian colonial empire in Europe needed to be rolled back ("liberating" Poland and the Baltics, possibly also Ukraine) and her influence in the Balkans curtailed. Beyond that there were some aspirations to neutralize France by annexing or occupying Briey longwy, and perhaps also gaining colonies or partial control over Belgium (namely Liege) and Luxembourg, but these enjoyed somewhat less uniform support, being advocated mainly by the conservative military leaders and opposed by the left wing and part of the civilian governments as well as some of the military staff who favored an eastern focused strategy.

France wanted Alsace Lorraine, and at least some of the political elite wanted either the dismemberment of Germany or at the bare minimum the demilitarization of the Rhineland.

Britain wanted to ensure Belgian neutrality and generally supported France to a more limited extent. She also took German colonies for lack of anything else and was the main beneficiary of Turkey's dismemberment.


Italy wanted Istria, Dalmatia, South Tyrol and a free hand in the Balkans (Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Greece to an extent). She was also offered part of the Turkish coast. More than anything she wanted to side with the winners and earn a place at the table.

The ottomans wanted respect and a reversal of their long decline at the hands of the Entente powers.

Serbia wanted Yugoslavia.

Bulgaria wanted Macedonia and thessaloniki.

Greece wanted Constantinople, Thrace and Asia minor.

You'll note that basically no one got what they wanted, except America, Japan and Serbia (Also Romania).
 
Yes they had, remember the Triple Intervention?

Well, sure, but the other two members of said intervention were on the other side. And they'd since fought a war against one of those two. So that still provides no specific reason to join one side and not the other.
 
The ugly truth seems to be that no one had any true "aims", that is to say an actual policy. Each power had wants and needs, it had dreams and grudges, axes to grind and scores to settle, but none was really a coherent policy. The war is driven more by hubris and fear, the military planned campaigns and the diplomats sought relations, commerce flowed and businesses pursued profits, leaders looked to flags on maps, pieces of the board and how grand the uniforms looked. As said, only France had another resembling a plan, they wanted to retake A-L and humble Germany sufficient to make it stick. To that end they sucked Russia into going to war over its inferiority in the Balkans, aligned Britain in its fear of losing the top spot and Wilhelm was simply too foolish to see the noose was only as strong as he put his neck in it. Both Germany and A-H wanted to curb the Russian renewal in power and the UK wanted to keep Europe divided, at odds and otherwise status quo. Russia wanted to be respected, or feared, and absolve its failure versus the Japanese. To each a quick little war seemed winnable and righteous. In 1914 I feel each player simply wanted to show off its might, win enough to brag about and return to the haggling table, only Germany tried to finish off France and Russia thought it would vanquish the Germans to become the true continental power, each found the ring to far out of grasp while France gave away a generation to its pride, Britain spent its treasure to add a few tokens in return, and Germany with A-H lost, with Nicholas losing everything. Overall a shining example of how leadership can fail.
 
"War goal" implies that anyone knew what was going on or had anything resembling a coherent plan. There was nothing of the sort, even before we get into the virulent disagreements with the countries themselves and the way outlooks changed along with the war itself.

In term of specific goals in 1914?
Russia wanted the straits and to support Serbia.
Austria wanted to teach Serbia a lesson and have a "short victorious war" to revitalize the faltering dual monrchy.
Germany wanted to break her encirclement, either by seeing the triple Entente broken or by ensuring they were no longer a threat- Russian industrial growth was a massive concern for them and there was a general consensus that the Russian colonial empire in Europe needed to be rolled back ("liberating" Poland and the Baltics, possibly also Ukraine) and her influence in the Balkans curtailed. Beyond that there were some aspirations to neutralize France by annexing or occupying Briey longwy, and perhaps also gaining colonies or partial control over Belgium (namely Liege) and Luxembourg, but these enjoyed somewhat less uniform support, being advocated mainly by the conservative military leaders and opposed by the left wing and part of the civilian governments as well as some of the military staff who favored an eastern focused strategy.

France wanted Alsace Lorraine, and at least some of the political elite wanted either the dismemberment of Germany or at the bare minimum the demilitarization of the Rhineland.

Britain wanted to ensure Belgian neutrality and generally supported France to a more limited extent. She also took German colonies for lack of anything else and was the main beneficiary of Turkey's dismemberment.


Italy wanted Istria, Dalmatia, South Tyrol and a free hand in the Balkans (Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Greece to an extent). She was also offered part of the Turkish coast. More than anything she wanted to side with the winners and earn a place at the table.

The ottomans wanted respect and a reversal of their long decline at the hands of the Entente powers.

Serbia wanted Yugoslavia.

Bulgaria wanted Macedonia and thessaloniki.

Greece wanted Constantinople, Thrace and Asia minor.

You'll note that basically no one got what they wanted, except America, Japan and Serbia (Also Romania).

I'd argue France got what they wanted in 1919. They got A-L back, they got a demilitarized Rhineland, they got a punished/weakened Germany. It all went to hell 20 years later of course.
 
It really seems as it was just a matter of going with the flow. When Wilson asked the powers to come up with their war aims in December 1916, it came across as a slap in the face to Wilson.

What is still to be looked at is if at least the start of WWI was just another war - It had not evolved into a national war, a people's war.

I agree that France with its desire to take back AL was a clear goal, but even that is a bit 'pedestrian' to go to war for.

Russia did not even have a treaty or pact with Serbia. … And shooting royalty was just 'not cricket'.

AH's aim at setting Russia back with a few decades also seems a bit off-target. How would they even have managed that?

In essence; the events were driving it, not the politicians.
 
Top