(My Answer on Quora)
They had a strong industrial base to begin with that goes back well into the 19th century. Both the Diesel and the regular Internal Combustion engines were either developed or improved on by pre-war German engineers. Their academies and engineering schools were some of the best in the world and their production ingenuity had been supercharged by the necessity of war and the need for innovation (especially when skirting around the Allied Sea blockades).
My answer on Quora.
There wasn’t as clear a case of good v evil as there was for WWII. Yes the Kaiser had his faults (German action in Belgium in particular was horrendous) but on a scale of depravity he didn’t even come close to the Nazi despot.
In the East the Japanese military during WWII clearly transgressed all accepted norms of conduct with with the Rape of Nanking, their treatment of prisoners and war and the barbarism shown to conquered people. Defeating Tojo and co. scaffolded well into the dichotomy of the force of Light overcoming the Sith.
Add to that the clash of personalities in WWII …Churchill/Stalin v Hitler and you have many sub-plots that make for great reading and subsequent pedestal elevating, despite the fact that abuses were committed by both the Allies and the Axis. Nobody’s hands were clean although one can with careful analysis differentiate by degree of action.
WWII also had a much more obvious resolution than did WWI. It was also a greater expression of the notion of Total War in the way that it impacted civilian populations. In addition it posted a greater global impact that fed into the narrative of the ideological struggle. In a sense it represented a playing out of the politicism that engulfed the Modern world in the 20th century.
On a practical level the Generals and Admirals and Air Marshals were all the more competent in WWII, the weaponry vastly more impressive and the scope of tactics of greater study worthiness.
Where WWI did dominate from a Romantic perspective is that the quality of poetry dwarfed the later conflict. WWII lacked its Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Waiting around in trenches for events to happen was conducive to such writing.
(My Answer in Quora)
The United States wasn’t neutral for all of WWI. They did however have a policy of neutrality that lasted from 1914 to April 1917. This was completely understandable.
The Great War was seen as a war that resulted from the tenuous breakdown in the Balance of Power that defined European politics. At the core of these continental rivalries was the question of colonial territory and First World imperialism. Britain and France were not eager to allow ‘Johnny-come-lately’ Germany to challenge their hegemony in this domain. Add to that French security concerns, the Eastern Question and German militarization and you had the powder keg for WWI.
None of these issues were seen as having any impact on the United States by the vast majority of Americans. They were geographically and strategically beyond the US’s orbit and America appeared as having little to gain by intervening in favor of one side over the other. There was no appetite for lives sacrificed to satiate an imperialism that was seen as disdainful by the American public.
A neutral United States growing without the strain of a war economy and not suffering the ignoble fate of high casualties was the best option for America. In fact the US could profit immensely by supplying goods to either side while furnishing the necessary war loans. They did just that for several years.
However ideal intentions often come unstuck when faced with the grim face of reality. Neutrality is a fine line to walk especially if economic considerations are playing a major role in framing policy.
President Woodrow Wilson’s administration for one had a distinct bias in favour of the British (many believe that he was dead set on backing the British from the get go). The sinking of the Lusitania shipping liner in 1915 by a German submarine that resulted in 128 American lives lost further transformed public opinion in the US against Germany.
In March 1916 the French passenger ship, the Sussex, was sunk with more American lives lost. Although the public was angered it was still not clamoring for war. In fact Wilson, ever the politician, went ahead and won the 1916 election with the slogan “He kept us out of the war”.
Behind the scenes though the situation was shifting significantly. The winds were blowing more strongly in one direction as the US upped their supplies to their Anglophone cousins. Berlin caught on quickly. A side does not take kindly when another country is acting as a supply arsenal for the enemy while hiding behind the cloak of neutrality.
While many in the German war establishment were loathe to encourage U-Boat attacks on American shipping, for fear of drawing the United States into an official war (check out the Sussex Pledge), the Kaiser wasn’t.
His voice carried the day by January 1917. Germany would embark on a policy of naval aggression. This together with the deliberate expose of the Zimmerman Telegram (a secretive 1917 German initiative to draw Mexico into a war against the United States) further sealed America’s position in the War.
It was clear that if a new order were to prevail in Europe in favour of Germany the United States could likely suffer. The US could not remain neutral. Germany had to be defeated and Wilsonian idealism dictated that the US would have to be at the post war negotiation table that followed (this was an opportunity for his League of Nations to come to fruition).
Wilson brought the matter before Congress on the 2nd of April 1917. Four days later the US was officially at war with Germany.
(My answer on Quora)
WWI was largely a war between Imperial powers bifurcated into two opposing camps. It was driven by four factors - the continental balance of power, localized nationalism, concerns for empire/colonies and various historical grievances and insecurities.
While it was true that indirectly some of these aspects impacted the United States none of them were significant enough in their own right for the United States to enter the war on the side of either the Allies or the Central Powers for the greater timeline of WWI. American popular opinion also favored neutrality.
It was only after American shipping was challenged and the obvious spillover effects became more apparent that the United States was drawn into the bloodbath.
Remember war is brutal. It can be costly on many levels as retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler opined in his 1935 “War is a racket speech
(My answer on Quora)
It made several mistakes. The biggest one was getting involved in the First World War to begin with. Many see this as the onset of the rapid decline of Britain as a World Power. The entire war should never have been allowed to go beyond a continental conflict in the first place.
Other mistakes occurred at Gallipoli (1915–1916) and the Dardanelles fiasco, the overestimation of their artillery barrage efficacy at the onset of the Battle of the Somme (1916) and the significant naval tonnage lost suffered at the Battle of Jutland (1916). Extremely high casualties suffered at the Battle of Passchendaele (1917) for very little territory gained was also not the finest hour in the history of the British military.
My answer on Quora.
This isn’t an easy question to answer with a few sentences as the mechanisms that resulted in WWI predate it by close to half a century. Having said that I do offer an overall summation you can fast forward to the end of this answer.
Until then…lets look at the chain of events that occurred. Once again the devil is in the detail.
World War One (WWI), the Great War or the War to End All Wars was one of the most devastating events in the history of Western Civilization. It brought down the Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires, forever changed the fortunes of Britain, France and Germany and allowed the United States to emerge globally as both an economic and military force.
Ideologically it set the stage for Communism, Islamism and Fascism and by its large footprint on International Geopolitics set in motion the Second World War and the Cold War.
To appreciate the origins of WWI we need to go back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 that ultimately provided the groundwork for the unification of Germany, the Embarrassment of France and a growing sense of animosity and fear that would colour relations between the fledgling German State and the newly founded French Third Republic.
Otto von Bismarck - Father of the newly formed German State and nemesis of France source: Britannica
In 1879 French fears about further German aggression were highlighted by the signing of the Dual Alliance treaty between Germany and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Three years later a newly unified Italy would add its name to the agreement transforming it into a Triple Alliance. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was a polyglot grouping of several nationalities many of which were yearning for independence.
Germany was solidifying her position in Europe and further made her colonial ambitions clear during the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 that somewhat arrogantly divided Africa among competing European interests.
In 1887 German-Russian cooperation was reaffirmed (on paper) with the Reinsurance Treaty but this would prove to be the last masterwork of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck but was dismissed in 1890 by the expansionist focused young monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II who had ascended to the throne only two years prior.
Kaiser Wilhem II source: history.com
The French responded to the German initiatives by adopting a policy of Revanchism whose aim was to recover lost territory and counter the German threat. The Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 was signed in this regard.
However there were concerns on the horizon. The Anglo-German Naval Arms Race was underway from 1898 and this would escalate further when the HMS Dreadnought entered service for the Royal Navy in 1906.
Britain had ended her Splendid Isolation in 1902 by signing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. London’s global footprint had been stretched during the Anglo-Boer war (1899–1902) and there was an obvious concern about German meddling that had become a reality in this protracted conflict. In 1904 Britain and France would bury the old hatchet by signing the Entente Cordiale.
HMS Dreadnought - A key player in the Naval Arms Race source: Thoughtco
Following her embarrassing defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 the Tsarist regime took a turn westward by building on the agreement signed with France, entering into the Anglo-Russian Entente with Britain in 1907.
Europe was now divided into two camps. The Triple Allliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the Triple Entente (UK, France and Russia). The Germans had also cultivated a strong relationship with the Ottoman Empire.
There was somewhat of a distinction though between the two camps with the former having more of a military framework than that of the latter.
More unease was to follow. The First Moroccan Crisis (aka Tangier Crisis) reignited tension between France and Germany in 1906 despite the fact that the dispute was largely settled at the Algeciras Conference. A Second Moroccan Crisis (aka Agadir Crisis) followed soon in the wake of Germany flexing her naval strength in 1911.
Fortunately neither one of these volatile occurrences erupted into a broader conflict at the time. This was not the case though with other regional conflicts such as the Italian-Turkish War (an Italian victory that was cemented by the Treaty of Lausanne) or the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 that further weakened the Ottoman Empire and reignited the explosive keg that was the Eastern Question.
Nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including those within the Turkish core of the Ottoman Empire (the Young Turks had seized power in 1912). These would serve to draw both the Triple Alliance and the Entente into a spiralling chain of events that far exceeded the Great Game rivalry of the previous century.
On the 28th of June 1914, the Austria-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo by Bosnian Serb Nationalist Gavrilo Princip. Princip had been trained by the Black Hand movement that was eager to win independence from Vienna for Bosnia Serbian interests. Although he insisted that he acted independently the Austrian-Hungarians believed that the entire episode was orchestrated by the government of Serbia proper.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand source: History.com
What followed was a sequence of events known as the July Crisis. Austria-Hungary ended her ‘policy of patience’ and was granted a ‘Blank Cheque’ by Germany to take a hard line against Serbia even in the face of Russian opposition (the Russians were the historic backers of Serbia).
On the 23rd of July 1914 Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia with stringent demands that Belgrade come clean about its involvement in the assassination and end all Independence related activity or face military action. This was coordinated with the German Foreign Office. Russia cautioned Serbia against accepting such an ultimatum.
Russian troops started to mobilize and on July 25th Austria-Hungary broke off relations with Serbia. Three days later war was declared against Serbia.
At this point Britain, represented by Sir Edward Grey, was still tending towards neutrality but the Austrian-Hungarians were mobilizing in the face of a Russian threat. Germany called in vain for Russia to back down and on August 1st began mobilizing as well. Further requests went out from Britain and France for Germany to respect the neutrality of Belgium.
With no positive response from Germany. France began to mobilize on the 1st of August (an incredibly busy day) Germany declared war on Russia. A day later Germany entered into a military agreement with the Ottoman Empire.
On August 3rd Germany declared war on France and refused to respect Belgium’s neutrality. After much heated debate Britain made the fateful decision to declare war on Germany on August 4th as Berlin hurried to implement the Schlieffen Plan.
Germany’s Two pronged Schlieffen plan that was intended to knock out the French then the Russians. In practice it bogged down in France/Belgium but was more successful in the East Source: Big Think
By August 6th Japan had declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Italy would withdraw from the Triple Alliance choosing to remain neutral for now (they would later fight on the same side as the Entente nations).
The Lights had finally gone out in Europe. The Great War had begun. Nobody could have imagined at the time the future horrors that awaited.
In the final summation…Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire would be known as the Central Powers. Britain (her Empire), France, Japan, Russia, Serbia, Belgium plus Italy were termed the Allies.
System of Alliances source: WorldWar I vault
So who then was to blame for the War?
There is no doubt that the German Kaiser Wilhelm II was extremely belligerent in his foreign policy not to mention the Naval Race and had definitely upset the extra-territorial balance agreed to in Berlin in 1885 by his actions in both Moroccan Crises. It was clear from the Schlieffen Plan that Germany viewed the war as both a winnable and indeed a necessary option to further such ambitions on the continent. The harshness of the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) that followed Russian withdrawal from WWI would highlight this in the future.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (a tremendous land grab by Germany) source: Mental Floss
The Kaiser upped the ante by offering Austria-Hungary a Blank Cheque in support of a hard line stance against Serbia and then rapidly declared war on both Russia and France negating all attempts at a diplomatic solution. In addition Germany deliberately ignored the notion of Belgium neutrality thereby precipitating a radical escalation of events by forcing Britain into making a very difficult decision.
As for the Austria-Hungarians and the Ottomans the War represented a last ditch attempt to hang on to multicultural Empires that had long since past their expiry dates and would be swept aside by Nationalistic sentiments. They both hitched their wagons to the German train and would ultimately be undone by the folly of the Kaiser.
However the Russians are not without blame here either. Their decision to mobilize early during the July Crisis certainly impacted the turn of events triggering security concerns within the Entente. Together with the Kaiser’s actions the Tsar helped transform a regional Balkan conflict into a much broader war.
French insecurity, a perpetual theme since 1870, was also a factor that fueled the march toward insanity. The Gallic power was obsessed with checking German ambitions on the continent and this was reflected with the Franco-Russian Alliance. From a German perspective the obvious realization of encirclement by the forces of two great forces (possibly joined by a third in Britain) was not to be discounted.
As for the British, they too like the French were relentless in safeguarding their colonial interests. Both were members of an elite club and it was clear that there was no-room for Johnny-came-lately Germany at the table. London and Paris would only tolerate limited German ambitions across the globe.
The tragedy though for Britain is that they could have avoided the war on the continent by not choosing not to enforce the notion of Belgium neutrality. This of course flies in the face of Britain’s international treaty commitments, but in retrospect considering the horror that the war inflicted on Britain (almost one million deaths) plus the subsequent weakening of its economy and global clout this may have been a smaller price to pay. It is not uncommon to view British decline as beginning with its ill-fated decision to enter the war.
Source: Statista
Further Readings
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman (1962)
The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson (2000)
