A sense of patriotism founded on exaggerated truths seem to be the foundation for war according to James Joll. In his essay, “The Mood of 1914", the author defines the feeling most of Europe shared. Governments wanted war and needed to ensure the support of their country. Each nation in Europe came up with their own way to justify going to war. France maintained that they were fighting to protect their land from German attack. Joll suggested that, “the Germans were fighting to defend the soil of Germany against the Cossack hordes . . . ” If each country were convinced they were fighting for just reasons, then why would the people not approve of war?
The author describes a sense of patriotism that had been embedded in the minds of people over the years. In the United States we certainly teach our history classes from a different perspective than the British would. A sense of loyalty to their country was planted in children during school. In his essay Joll recalled a section from a French history book which stated, “In defending France we are defending the land where we were born, the most beautiful and the most bountiful country in the world.”
The people of European countries seemed to be enthusiastic or relieved because of the idea of war. Being known as a whole instead of as an individual brought about a great sense of unity. Young men were deluded by the idea of war. They imagined war to be a liberating experience. The author recounts the words of Bertrand Russell who observed that people were cheering in the streets and seemed to be delighted at the prospect of a war.
I think that possibly the most understandable reason for war Joll offers up is the idea that people did not have much time to prepare for or understand what was happening. It is my belief that people get caught up in the idea of war. During the direct aftermath of the September 11 attacks most Americans unanimously opted for war. The sense of patriotism that we experienced was something that was unheard of in my lifetime. After the initial glory of war faded and casualties hit home some Americans changed their minds about the idea of war, but it was too late as the war was already well under way.
In the essay by L. L. Farrar, Jr., the idea of a short war was depicted as “[its] greatest illusion.” Every country wanted some sort of diplomatic victory, but they were not going to accept diplomatic defeat so they chose war instead.
German strategy was built around the belief that the war would be short. Farrar quoted Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann predicting that the war would be a “brief storm.” Most everyone agreed that the war would be short considering that a long war would not be economically possible. A long war would interfere with trade and commerce. There were some who thought it was possible for the war to last several years, but even so Germany planned for a short war.
France and Russia also shared Germany’s belief in a short war. Those two countries’ strategies were built around that assumption.
Britain to some extent also agreed with the other countries. Farrar somewhat implies that Britain had more of an idea about how long the war really could be. The author tells of how after the war began, Lord Kitchener, opposed sending troops in immediately to support the French. He envisioned a war that would last several years. The British cabinet did not fully understand Kitchener’s prediction, but accepted it.
The reasoning behind the short war idea had to do with alliances and strategy. It was stated that each country’s chance to win the war relied on their strategy working out perfectly. The Germans constructed the Schlieffen plan which assumed them along with Austria-Hungary would go to war with Russia, France and most likely Great Britain. The French derived a plan inconspicuously called Plan XVII. The plan was much like the German’s plan and involved an invasion of Belgium.
I find it hard to believe that the idea of a short war alone could cause numerous countries to go to war. I do agree with the author that a short war could be one of the causes. Compared to the different reasons offered up by other authors the short war illusion just doesn’t seem as strong.
Wolfgang J. Mommsen focuses his essay mostly on the domestic affairs in Germany. It is obvious in his writings that he stresses the importance of Bethmann Hollweg, Chancellor of Germany.
Traditional conservatism was on the downfall. Social Democrats were on the rise, but did not have the majority. Mommsen suggests that the “complete deadlock in parliamentary politics” allowed Bethmann’s form of government “to carry on in spite of its unpopularity in all political quarters.”
Bethmann did not side with the Right or the Left. He was mostly a conservative that ignored public opinion when it came to foreign affairs and instead believed that they should be conducted in secret. This decision allowed him to be attacked by Conservatives and nationalists who saw his policy as weak.
Bethmann thought he could get along without going to war. He maintained a peaceful policy, because as Mommsen suggested, “he was convinced that the existing political order [in Germany] would not survive a war.”
According to Mommsen, Bethmann got the majority of his criticism from the General Staff. Molke wanted to go to war while Germany still had a chance to win. Heydebrandt und der Lasa thought going to war would provide means to get rid of the Social Democrats. Hollweg was against this for obvious reasons. He knew that would endanger his political position. He then suggested that going to war for those reasons could actually strengthen the Social Democrats and go against conservatism.
Mommsen doesn’t blame greed or power for Germany’s entrance into the war. The author points the finger at Bethmann’s weakness and inability to keep up with socioeconomic change. I’m not going to jump out and claim Joachim Remak’s essay was the most persuasive, but I do love how he writes. The way the author proposed a lot of questions and then answered them with opinions disguised as facts allowed the essay to have more of an impact on me. Instead of pouring out lines consisting or boring names and dates he retells history as a story skewed with his own interpretations. When he describes the policy makers in Vienna as, “reckless and inadequate people” it clearly paints a vivid picture in my mind.
In the beginning of this essay he basically denounces what Mommsen suggested. Remak asserts that Berchtold rather than Bethmann made the crucial decisions regarding war and peace.
After reading through Joachim’s essay you can assume that he doesn’t blame any single country for the start of World War I, but at the same time blames them all. He may say this when he states, “All were sinners, all were sinned against,” but I think it’s evident that he believes Austria’s reasons for going to war were just. He distinctly labels WWI Austria and Serbia’s war, yet he backs Austria when mentioning their victims and then depicting The Serbian’s as helpers in that same sentence. Remak wrote, “Sarajevo was more than an excuse for war. It was one of its major causes.”
The author doesn’t let Austria off the hook completely. He makes it known that the government was fully aware of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that was going to take place and didn’t do anything to stop the Black Hand.
Joachim Remak lamely attempts to justify every country’s actions leading up to World War I. He gives everyone the benefit of the doubt.
“World War I was a modern diplomatic crisis gone wrong, the one gamble, or rather series of gambles, that did not work out, the one deterrent that did not deter. It happens.”
When thinking about the tragedy and death that war causes, this quote seems to make the author appear apathetic. At the same time I think it does a wonderful job of summing up his beliefs on the causes of the war. In his essay, “Austria-Hungary Opts for War,” Samuel R. Williamson Jr. outlines many causes for war. He emphasizes that politicians in Austria were fed up with Belgrade and prepared to go to war. There were a few problems that needed to be addressed. Williamson looked at these in brief detail in his essay.
The first problem he saw was how to gain Germany’s support. Austria needed Berlin to keep Russia from entering the war. Berchtold sent Count Hoyos to Berlin to basically let the German’s know that Austria planned on attacking Serbia and wanted their support. Berlin then gave Berchtold a “blank check.” This helped Berchtold in more ways than one. It solved his second problem when it put him one step ahead of the Magyar leader, Istvan Tisza, who favored caution. He was among the very few who did not agree with Berchtold’s course of action, but with the constant mention of German support Tisza eventually changed his mind.
The third problem pertained to Russia. No one was really sure how Russia would react. Some people speculated that Russia would decide to stay out of the war. It wasn’t long ago that Russia was defeated by the Japanese and they needed time to recover. It was also suggested that Russia feared revolution and that war might bring that about. Williamson claims that ignoring Russia was a mistake. He mentioned that, “[Austria’s] policymakers acted as if Russia did not exist.”
The fourth problem brought forth by Williamson was dispatching an unacceptable ultimatum to Belgrade. The Habsburg armies couldn’t move fast enough to attack Serbia and they certainly did not have the element of surprise.
The last problem related to how Austria was going to deal with offense. He wasn’t sure whether he should go with Serbia or Russia. Williamson claims that by “[drawing] from both [he] failed with each...”
In conclusion he suggests that Austria was not coerced into war. He maintains that the Habsburgs just wanted to control the Balkans and that their “prestige, monarchical self-esteem, exhaustion of patience and imagination” brought them into the war.
Out of all the essays I enjoyed reading the one by Joachim Remak the most. I wouldn’t say that I necessarily agree with his views on World War I, but I certainly enjoyed the way he wrote. I think that when someone writes in a more persuasive, argumentative way it draws the reader in. His ability to recount history with some accuracy without drowning the reader by listing facts makes his writing stand out among the other authors.