what caused WWI? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13859150
Germany is the main protagonist (well... antagonist) with its imperial ambitions and weltpolitik. However, Russia was the trigger. Russia was industrializing at a frightening pace at this time and it was also essentially allied with France, yet another revisionist (it just was - a hyper-mobilizing state that wanted revenge for 1871) power. If a general European war was to break out, Germany would have to fight a two-front war. Apparently, because the whole of Europe was insane, it was inconvenient not to have a war. The Russians also wanted to solve the Eastern question for good. When they learned about the Ottomans' plans to acquire two dreadnaughts (which would have rendered obsolete the entire Russian Black Sea navy and dramatically change the balance of power vis-a-vis the Ottomans) - so it started looking for a trigger.*

Russia had not helped the Bulgarians in 1913, nor the Serbs the same year against Austria-Hungary. In fact, Russia endorsed the creation of Albania to the disappointment of its Slavic brothers in Serbia. However, in 1914, Russia all of a sudden becomes the paragon of the Slavic cause in an issue in which the Austro-Hungarians are right. Why? Because the Ottomans were about to acquire dreadnaughts. Russia wanted war! Germany wanted a war too so that it may inflict severe damage on the industrializing Russia to prevent its further growth and to defeat France too. Add thinly veiled imperialism, strict mobilization timetables and suicidally unfounded expectations... and finally, a trigger (the poor old Archduke).


* Based on Sean McMeekin's new book.
By Smilin' Dave
#13859398
daft punk wrote:It all kicked off anyway and Britain immediately invaded Iraq.

It was hardly immediate. The conflict in Europe had started in August. The Ottoman Bergman Offensive had also commenced before the British landing at Fao, though both were in the month of November.

Doomhammer wrote:However, in 1914, Russia all of a sudden becomes the paragon of the Slavic cause in an issue in which the Austro-Hungarians are right.

Actually during the start of the 'July Crisis', Russia was urging the Serbs to accept pretty well anything the Austro-Hungarian Empire might do to them, including invasion, for the sake of peace and stability. Not to mention that the Tsar's ministers were urging him not to go to war. Given that for all its progress, Russia wasn't ready to fight another European power (as became clear during WWI) this wasn't a crazy notion. So the idea that Russia had always been using Austria's Ultimatum (which was not 'right', by the standards of the time it was way over the top) as an excuse for war is difficult to believe.

Doomhammer wrote: Why? Because the Ottomans were about to acquire dreadnaughts. Russia wanted war!

Which makes no sense, since Ottoman participate was far from clear in July 1914 when the situation came to a boil.
User avatar
By daft punk
#13859581
Well as far as I'm aware the first troops Britain deployed went to Iraq.
By Smilin' Dave
#13860096
daft punk wrote:Well as far as I'm aware the first troops Britain deployed went to Iraq.

First time in the Middle East perhaps (the BEF was fighting at Mons in August 1914), but the point is that British actions in the early days of the Middle Eastern conflict were that they were reactive. The landing at Fao was to protect British oil facilities in the area. Far from some kind of organised conspiracy against German power in the Middle East.
User avatar
By daft punk
#13860119
The British definitely wanted to stop the German railway and German expansion. Having said that on the eve of the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke, agreements were finally reached between the Germans, the British and the Turkish over oil rights in Mesopotamia. Before that the British had been meddling in Serbia.

"As well in Serbia British military and intelligence networks were most active prior to outbreak of war. Major R.G.D. Laffan was in charge of a British military training mission in Serbia just before the war. Following the war, Laffan wrote of the British role in throwing a huge block on the route of the German-Baghdad project:

"If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority," warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army.

"Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France," Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean."

Laffan suggested a British strategy to sabotage the Berlin-Baghdad link. "A glance at the map of the world will show how the chain of States stretched from Berlin to Baghdad. The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey. One little strip of territory alone blocked the way and prevented the two ends of the chain from being linked together. That little strip was Serbia. Serbia stood small but defiant between Germany and the great ports of Constantinople and Salonika, holding the Gate of the East...Serbia was really the first line of defense of our eastern possessions. If she were crushed or enticed into the 'Berlin-Baghdad' system, then our vast but slightly defended empire would soon have felt the shock of Germany's eastward thrust." "

http://oilgeopolitics.net/History/Oil_a ... orld_w.HTM


I cant verify the thing about the first troops. Rob Newman claims in a video that the second batalion of the Dorset regiment went to Basra earlier and that its not mentioned on their website. Coverup or bullshit?
By pugsville
#13860149
Laffan didnt know what he was talking about. The region covered by the railway line wasnt that productive. The railway would take a decade at best to construct. Donest mean he was influential or Representative of British thinking or actions though lots of foreign policy was made on pretty bad analysis. The "Great Game" was full of gentleman adventurers prone to hyperbole and grand schemes and some of them were listened to. The British intelligence "networks" were like everyone else's pretty thin and rude consisting mainly of self appointed amateurs.

Dont think much of the link typical conspiracy theory stuff. Contradicts itself, Britain donest decide oil is a strategic resource til 1904 but their plotting in 1890s? England was never worried about their Gold reserves they had practically none by world standards, the economic powerhouse they were at the time, stockpiles of gold were french or Russia pre occupation.
User avatar
By daft punk
#13860165
I think what's clear is that WW1 was a good excuse for everyone to try to grab as much stuff as possible, eg the British in Iraq was obviously to secure the oil. The British politicians were always concerned about resources and having an empire. There is a detailed article here along similar lines for anyone interested
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/le5-all.shtml
World War I: The breakdown of capitalism

Lets face it, the capitalist politicians couldnt explain the war, they all blamed each other and said it was a mistake.

A good point in the article is linking the Russian Revolution to WW1. This was no coincidence. WW1 represented an impasse for capitalism and so did the revolution. Ie the causes of WW1 and the revolution were linked, the inability of capitalism to develop while constrained by the nation state, and the inability of capitalism to develop backward countries.

It was one huge crisis, WW1, the Russian revolution, then the depression, fascism and WW2. Only after 1945 did capitalism start to revive, buoyed up by a big expansion in world trade. The only country unscathed was America so they helped the other countries. However their use of Marshall Aid to dominate the world backfired in the Eastern European countries and pushed them away.

It's also no coincidence that the colonisation of Africa ended at the start of WW1. Basically the capitalist countries needed resources and so they went after them, and by 1914 there was nothing left for the late entrants - Germany.

Obviously the precise trigger for the war was politics and a breakdown in diplomacy etc, but the background is always economics.
By pugsville
#13860204
Where do I start with that? What impasse?

Capitalism was not breaking down prior to ww1. It was social forces driving things (and yes there was a interplay with economic forces.) The development of nationalism was not really a economic thing, the occurrence of widespread schooling, literacy, railroads, better communications, effective government and large scale armies with conscription are came together with a rush 1870-1914 to really create national identities and mass politics.

Colonialism, while seen as a source of wealth at the time and later much of it was very very small in economic terms (India and china being the big exceptions and it was mainly as markets ) African colonialism was driven by a few entrepreneurs and public nationalist feelings, but really not a large factor in terms of the world economy. From a government perspective most colonies were losers, a drain on the national resources.

Capitalist Politicians? Not really in England and France (maybe) there was a fair correlation of capitalist and politician classes being the same, but what about Austria? Germany? Russia? Turkey? Serbia? More a Aristocratic/Military elite not really involved in Industry and capital. Most politicains were lawyers and journalists, middle classes rather capitalists, and most of the decision makers were a landed gentry with military pretensions rather than businessmen, they had money but really weren't involved in it. The Capitalists were generally making money rather than being involved with politics.

It was social forces with emergence on strong nationalist identities and conflict with the medieval construct of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. (though conversely the Russian Tzarist Empire was torn apart by regional seperatism nationalist in nature and the lack of nationalism in vast Russian peasantry trying to fight a nationalist war. )
User avatar
By daft punk
#13860225
pugsville wrote:Where do I start with that? What impasse?


British capitalism had been languishing for quite a while, German capitalism had surged forward but was now in crisis, capitalism had not developed in Russia, France was on the decline as a power.



pugsville wrote:Capitalism was not breaking down prior to ww1. It was social forces driving things (and yes there was a interplay with economic forces.) The development of nationalism was not really a economic thing, the occurrence of widespread schooling, literacy, railroads, better communications, effective government and large scale armies with conscription are came together with a rush 1870-1914 to really create national identities and mass politics.

Social forces derive from material conditions. You dont think the rise of the Nazis was connected to the ruin of the German middle classes? Who funded the Nazis - the capitalists.


pugsville wrote:Colonialism, while seen as a source of wealth at the time and later much of it was very very small in economic terms (India and china being the big exceptions and it was mainly as markets ) African colonialism was driven by a few entrepreneurs and public nationalist feelings, but really not a large factor in terms of the world economy. From a government perspective most colonies were losers, a drain on the national resources.


I dont think so.

A decade before the outbreak of war, the Tory politician Joseph Chamberlain had explained to the City’s bankers, in no uncertain terms, the significance of the Empire for their activities.

“You are the clearing-house of the world,” he told them. “Why? Why is banking prosperous among you? Why is a bill of exchange on London the standard currency of all commercial transactions? Is it not because of the productive energy and capacity which is behind it? Is it not because we have hitherto, at any rate, been constantly creating new wealth? Is it not because of the multiplicity, the variety, and the extent of our transactions? If any one of these things suffers even a check, do you suppose that you will not feel it? Do you imagine that you can in that case sustain the position of which you are justly proud? Suppose—if such a supposition is permissible—you no longer had the relations which you have at present with our great Colonies and dependencies, with India, with the neutral countries of the world, would you then be its clearing-house? No, gentlemen. At least we can recognize this—that the prosperity of London is intimately connected with the prosperity and greatness of the Empire of which it is the centre.


from my link supplied earlier (wsws)

Why do you think the British fought the Boer war? The British had half a million soldiers in South Africa, they werent on holiday. It was for the gold. We went to Iraq for the oil. Britain had the biggest empire the world has ever seen.


pugsville wrote:Capitalist Politicians? Not really in England and France (maybe) there was a fair correlation of capitalist and politician classes being the same, but what about Austria? Germany? Russia? Turkey? Serbia? More a Aristocratic/Military elite not really involved in Industry and capital. Most politicains were lawyers and journalists, middle classes rather capitalists, and most of the decision makers were a landed gentry with military pretensions rather than businessmen, they had money but really weren't involved in it. The Capitalists were generally making money rather than being involved with politics.

It was social forces with emergence on strong nationalist identities and conflict with the medieval construct of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. (though conversely the Russian Tzarist Empire was torn apart by regional seperatism nationalist in nature and the lack of nationalism in vast Russian peasantry trying to fight a nationalist war. )


Of course the politicians were capitalist, what do you think they were? In Russia you had a semifeudal operation going on with the Tsar in power, but feudalism formally abolished. German became a nation state in 1871. Germany still had an Imperial ruler but the economy was capitalist. A politician doesnt have to BE a capitalist to work on behalf of the capitalist class. Germany's capitalist economy was powering forward, this was the problem, the other countries were worried about that. See the quote above. Thatcher was a greengrocer's daughter but she knew how to run a country on behalf of the capitalists.

Yes Germany was a mishmash, hence the revolution which nearly established socialism but in the end heralded the beginning of bourgeois democracy for a few chaotic years until the fascists ended that with the help of the stupidity of the Communist party. But the fascists were working for the capitalists anyway.
By pugsville
#13860304
In Russia, Austria, Germany the leaders were Aristocrats not capitalists. There werent middle class bourgeois. They had a pretty strong class Identity. They were running the show and they knew it. While the Industrial interests were not without influence, they were not pulling the strings.

What crisis? Capitalism was functioning fine it didnt need the war, of course the capitalist industrialists took to the war and used it for massive profits, but the conventional wisdom before WW1 had complete and utter breakdown of the financial world and most likely society if the war lasted a year.

A lot of things that people put down to evil conspiracy is often more understandable as incompetency.

The Balkan's were an eruption of Identity and Nationalism a threat to structure of the Austria-Hungrian dual Monarchy/Empire. It wasnt about the money.


Yes. The Nazis were funded by the Nazis, but it was chump change, and they only gave over because Hitler told them flat out there would not be another election.

Thats the problem with Marxists they are so bloody materialistic, marxists analysis is useful at times, but suffers from when you have a hammer every thing becomes a nail. Social forces derive from the material conditions, or conversely equally as valid, material conditions are shaped by the social forces. Yes bend every last thing in the history of the planet so fits into one nice little theory. Marx was pretty smart guy, nice analysis but totally social inedpt the "withering away" of the state, right the state just melts away it's like he knew nothing about people at all. means of Production etc, nice theory, but just a little blind about what drives people, it;s as bad as economic rationalism (and Marx was a economic rationalist, materialistic to the core, empty Philosophy)


the Spartacus revolt, was never a revolution and there was no nearly about it, it was a class A dumb get you shot idealistic stupid move that had no hope.

The Boer War might have started as cynical scheme by Rhodes et al, and he did have friends in low places, but the War was about image, they really in the end gave the Boers everything they would have settled for in the first place. It cost the British more than they ever got out the gold (from the Empire's point of view) It was particularly dumb and brutal war, but it was mainly fought about Identity rather than money (though Rhodes was definitely about the gold)

Just explain the crisis,this limitation that national states on capital forced a big war.
By Smilin' Dave
#13861215
daft punk wrote:I cant verify the thing about the first troops. Rob Newman claims in a video that the second batalion of the Dorset regiment went to Basra earlier and that its not mentioned on their website. Coverup or bullshit?

Without landing first at Fao, I'm not really sure how the British would have gone about advancing on Basra.
User avatar
By daft punk
#13861302
pugsville wrote:Just explain the crisis,this limitation that national states on capital forced a big war.


The world economy went into a downturn in 1913. The main powers were concerned about the growth of Germany. They were all squabbling over colonies. Capitalism wanted to grow and the main way it knew how at the time was colonies. The capitalist countries viewed their prospects as against the prospects of another country, ie they tended to think that if another country did well they would do badly. Everything hinged on the national rivalries you talk about, but capital wants to go international. There was a conflict between nationalism and the tendency of capital to go global.

In the 30s we witnessed American capital financing Nazi Germany. They aided their future enemy.

I'm not disputing that a load of social connections went haywire and sparked a war, I'm saying that the economic conditions laid the basis for it, provided the overall background. Yes of course its a dialectical thing and works in both directions, that is basic Marxism. When war started there were lots of vested interests in getting stuck in, eg German capitalism wanted France's iron ore fields, France wanted to regain lost territory, everyone wanted to weaken Germany, Britain wanted to secure its empire and oil. They might not have consciously started a war for these ends but thats what they though about as soon as it started.

No time to cover all the other points just now.

Smilin Dave wrote:Without landing first at Fao, I'm not really sure how the British would have gone about advancing on Basra.

I dunno, maybe he got it wrong, I will have to stop repeating that claim as Ive not managed to verify it. Fact is it was still early on in a war most people thing of as being primarily centred in Europe at least initially.

Oil was just beginning to become important as Churchill wanted to convert the navy to oil.
By Rich
#14154344
daft punk wrote:eg German capitalism wanted France's iron ore fields,

Marxists really are tiresome parasites on the body intellectual. What evidence have you for that? Why did German Capatalists need to own French ore fields? Why couldn't they buy the ore from the French or buy shares in French ore fields. Has any Marxist even bothered to analyse the gains made by the capitalists of a country through a victorious war settlement. Were the French ore fields to be expropriated and given to German capitalists for free? I doubt it very much. Just keep churning out the same worthless Marxist drivel. I suppose the Falkland war was driven by the Argentinian Capitalists' lust to get their hands on the vast Falkland sheep farms and fishing industries. The Balkan's had substantial natural resources, particular scare metals, no doubt the American Capitalists in World War II were hungry to get their hands on those. Ripping off the Balkans would be far easier than the established Liberal Democratic polities of France, Belgium and Holland. So the American capitalists ordered Roosevelt to head straight for the Balkans? Not just on this board but generally across the discourse of the western world its time to say to the Marxists. We've had enough of your time wasting, your energy wasting - Stop the drivel!
User avatar
By Locke II
#14154360
Gavrilo Princip's Sandwich. We should outlaw sandwiches everywhere so as to prevent this again.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]