"German connections to the start of World War One" Topic

link

Not miniatures related, but definitely provocative of discussion (it falls well outside the TMP ten-year prohibition by a factor of ten).

Imagine all those Teutons roaring into battle down the ages because they hated the feeling of inferiority!

Hopefully, they/we are all done with that?…

What a load of BS. Blame Germany as always. Remember it was Russian and French troops who crossed the border into Germany first. France was mobilized several days ahead of Germany and already moving its armies to invade.

The Kaiser did not want a war. If he wanted a war he could have started one right after the Russians had its reformation start in 1906 and then it would have been just France.

The German government in fact had just past a bill that would have financed an increase in size of the German army by enough new Regular Army Corps to defend both the east and west fronts. The French were the ones who realized if they were going to get Alsac-Lorraine back, 1914 would be the last chance. When France and Russia still outnumbered the Germans for the short term.

Nice bit of historical revisionism there…..

Doug, I'd be really interested to know what documents exist that prove that France wanted a war as soon as possible?
I'm in your camp regarding the simplicity of blaming Germany alone – I apportion the lion's share of the blame to Russia due to diplomatic ineptitude and a belief that war was better than negotiation because only war could restore Russia's prestige lost over the previous decade – but where is the evidence of anyone in the high command or Government of France saying that they had to attack in 1914? Is there a particular scholar that you have read in regards to French guilt?

@doug: what Etranger said. Which is ironic of course.

@Natholeon: I never put all the blame for the 1WW on "Germany alone". As you can see from the title, the piece is solely concentrated on Germany's essential role in making the war happen. Austro-Hungarian demands and declarations of war; Russian mobilization; French lust for redemption/revenge; none of these taken altogether would have produced the war. Britain siding with France when it became obvious that Germany was threatening Belgian neutrality didn't even stop Wilhelm and his generals. The Brits hoped it would, but it didn't, and committed Britain to support France instead, they couldn't just back down when the Germans called them on it. The British do not bluff.

It was Prime Minister Asquith who observed: "There is something very crude & childlike about German diplomacy." Russian diplomacy was A+ compared to German diplomacy.

@doug: Wilhelm wanted a war, just not against George, he wanted to avoid bringing the British into it, thus his push right up to the eleventh hour to move all German forces against Russia alone and leave France out of it. His generals convinced him this was impossible or impractical, "for technical reasons", and the advance into Belgium took place as planned.

If the responses so far to this thread are an indication, this will be an interesting year for debating the observation of the centennial of the outbreak of the war. It would make a great docudrama. I wonder who will take that on properly first….

Folks can quibble all they want, but the German's "blank check" to Austria-Hungary was the match that lit the fuse.

The German invasion of Beligum pushed the UK (which would have sat out the war given a chance) into the war.

Austria-Hungary's fear of appearing to be weak and with Germany to back their demands allowed them to refuse to accept Serbia's willingness to surrender on nearly all points demanded of them.

Germany's refusal to not push the Russians caused the French to react. The German demands to France were designed to gurantee that France would fight.

Granted that all European countries were armed and ready, but German and Austria-Hungary share the burden of having started the war.

Dan

What doug says about France in 1914 is certainly historical revisionism !
The first German troops invaded Luxemburg on 1st August 1914 and entered France on August 2nd at several places. Germany issued an ultimatum to France to remain neutral on August 1st and receiving no reply declared war on France on August 3rd. The German declaration of war mentions French aviators attacking German territory but there is no evidence that this actually happened.
In actual fact France was caught unprepared by the war crisis : PM Vivani and President Poincarι had paid a visit to St Petersburg and were returning via sea from July 23rd – July 30th 1914. The big news in the French newspapers was of the acquittal of Madame Cailleux and the assassination of the Leftist Jean Jaurιs by a nationalist fanatic. On his return to France on July 30th Vivani immediately cabled Russia stating that the Tsar ' … should not immediately proceed to any measure that might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilisation of her forces ' – this suggests that the French were actually trying to stop a war , rather than start one ! The same day the French pulled their troops back 6 miles from the German border. Joffre asked permission to order a general mobilisation of the armed forces but this was refused by the French cabinet : in fact the French army did not mobilise until August 2nd. Since Germany had declared war on France and violated Belgian neutrality the French were perfectly within their rights to invade Alsace on August 7th.

The Kaiser did not want a war. If he wanted a war he could have started one right after the Russians had its reformation start in 1906 and then it would have been just France.

The death of Franz Ferdinand pushed the Kaiser into giving support for Austrian retribution against Serbia , hence the granting of the ' blank cheque ' to Vienna giving them German backing whatever they decided to do. It was only the unique circumstances of 1914 that conpired to bring about a world war. When Serbia conceded to the Austrian ultimatum on July 28th Wilhelm offered to mediate but Falkenhayn told him he ' no longer had control of the affair in his own hands ' while Jagow and Bethmann did not pass the Kaiser's instructions to cease hostilities onto the Austrians via telegram. The last realistic chance to stop the war was ended.

Folks can quibble all they want, but the German's "blank check" to Austria-Hungary was the match that lit the fuse.

This. The German ' blank cheque ' and the Austrian attack on Serbia caused the war. Thus German and Austrian politicians are responsible , there is no getting around it.

danCyr,

True about the blank check but let us not forget that Serbia turned to Russia asking "will you help us?" and Russian hestitated until they also got a blank check from France saying they would back them no matter what. Given that there would have been no immediate WWI if Russia had told Serbia "you are on your own", then doesn't the French Blank Check become far more important?

You can't blame the Serbians for looking for protection in the case of a potential attack by a much larger power , they had the right to defend themselves. And the Tsar was traditionally the champion of the Slavic peoples.
Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia knowing full well that the Russians would respond , the Austrians were hoping that the Germans would deal with the Russians and either defend them from attack or else keep the Russians out of the war. The Austrians had the choice of whether to attack or not and whether to accept the Serbian acceptance of terms or not.
In short : the French blank cheque did not cause the war , the German blank cheque did.

Austria-Hungary had two undesirable choices: act timid as usual, and lose the alliance-protection of Germany, or act aggressively as a "top nation" was expected to do, and keep the German alliance. To act aggressively meant, to Germany, make demands on Serbia that no self-respecting nation could possibly accept, i.e. force a war with Serbia. Knowing that Russia would likely mobilize to defend Serbia was the malice aforethought that Germany was guilty of. The German military wanted a "world war" so that they could seize this last chance to exercise their military advantage before Russia had rearmed in the modern style (anticipated to be completed by 1917).

Why Germany felt the need to seize the moment to start a world war in the first place is the fascinating part, which the OP introduces for discussion….

Interesting…. If the British had 'sat out' the war, would 'The European War' be another 'niche' period for gamers, like the FPW? (Unless WW1 already is… I don't know)

The French did not give a 'blank check' to the Russians. The French were allied to the Russians, knew that if the Germans declared war that they'd be the first target of a German invasion and did what they could to stave off the war.

The French attempted to prevent any suggestion that they were responsible for starting the war by, as stated above, withdrawing all French forces from their border and leaving the Germans the responsibility of declaring war and invading.

Germany could have stopped Austria-Hungary from refusing the Serbian's surrender to their demands (all but 1 point), or Austrian-Hungary to face Russia alone.

The Kaiser, was without doubt one of the silliest rulers in Europe (better than the Bulgarian 'Kaiser' at least) and had had so many other moments of stupidity over the past 20 years that I'm sure he never gave a thought to his 'blank check' and assumed that he'd escape being embarrassed again. His honest panic when he realized that he'd trapped himself, only measures out what a incompetent individual he was.

One cannot blame a nation for the folly of their government, especially when that nation is a non-democratic one. The UK and France were democratic states and both were dragged into a war they did not want. Russia, chose to defend Serbia as a choice and Germany/Austria-Hungary were pushing for a war for a number of reasons (German fear of Russia's rebuilding and A-H's fear of being considered 'weak').

I always recommend "The Guns of August" to folks who want to get a general public reading of the start of WWI and the events leading up to it. Still a great read 50 years after it was first published.

Dan

Gisbygeo:

One could make a case that the German navy would have beat the French navy (assuming it was still stationed in the Atlantic/Channel), but I think one could also make a case that the French army would have still stopped the Germans on land (great press, but the Briitish army was not that great a factor in August/September 1914).

Would the French have held out after the Russians were badly defeated in the same time period, don't think so. Would have been France & Beligum vs. Germany on western front and don't think they'd have been able to hold.

The German war demands are known, so the question would have been if the French would have accepted them or forced Germany to actually win a military victory as in 1870?

Dan

A hundred years later, are we finally beyond that historical baggage? Or are there enough vestiges of "Teutonic" and "Frankish" pride to cause a split and another war?

I think we're truly beyond it. The next big war would have to come from somewhere, something, else. Europeans have broken from the past that caused the wars of the past….

You can't blame the Serbians for looking for protection in the case of a potential attack by a much larger power , they had the right to defend themselves.

Just like they had the right to sponsor terrorist actions on Austrian soil or threaten the territorial integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
People often say that Serbia couldn't have started WWI because it is too small, and to an extent they are right. But the revolution that changed the Serb government earlier in the century effectively changed Serbia from an Austrian friend into a state with a Pan-Slavist and irridentist ideology which proved an existential threat to the Hapsburg empire. Russia backed this regime for its own selfish actions. For the Hapsburgs this meant potential enemies to the East, South and West (no-one trusted the Italians to remain faithful to their treaty). The fact that groups within Serbia with extensive links to the government sponsored the terrorist assassination of Franz Ferdinand (whose ideas about the future of the Hapsburg Empire might prove to run counter to Serbia' aims) meant that the Austrians really couldn't trust Serb guarantees to deal with the problem themselves.
Austria was justified in attacking Serbia on those grounds, and justified in seeking reassurances from Germany for protection. Russia was justified in mobilizing to protect their friends, but not in the inept handling of the diplomatic situation which followed, where they should have backed down and sought a conference while Austria bloodied itself against the Serbs. The outcome of an international conference may have followed the pattern of the Congress of Berlin in clearing up the mess Russia had made of the Balkans in 1878. Instead they forged ahead, scared Germany into war and unleashed the Schleiffen plan – not to say that France wouldn't have fought anyway to protect Russia if it hadn't been attacked itself.

The fact that groups within Serbia with extensive links to the government sponsored the terrorist assassination of Franz Ferdinand…

Members of Cma Ruka ( ' Black Hand ' ) had positions in the Serbian government and army , but that's not the same thing as saying the Serbian government either sponsored terrorism or actively sponsored this group : it did not. In fact Prime Minister Pasic actually tried to warn Austria that rumours of an assassination plot were in the air ( meeting of Ljuba Jovanovic with Leon von Blinski June 21st 1914 ) but no extra security precautions were taken. Serbia could do nothing to stop the assassination attempt because the conspirators were in Bosnia – which was Austrian territory and thus out of their reach. Thus the Serbian government was not responsible for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand : the murder was the responsibility of a few young men belonging to the ' Young Bosnia ' group who essentially acted on their own initiative.The Serbian government did not back or support the assassination attempt.
The death of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause for the Austrian invasion of Serbia , it was merely the excuse for it. Austria issued Serbia with an ultimatum it could never accept ( although in the end it did concede to all but one point of the ultimatum ) because it wanted a war and that was the end of it. Neither Serbia nor Russia wanted a war in 1914 because Serbia was exhausted from the Balkan conflicts and because it would have been more advantageous for Russia to wait until it's rearmament programme was complete. A war in 1914 suited Austria and Germany , not Serbia or Russia.

Didnt Von Moltke spend a telegram to the Austro Hungarians telling them to hurry up with the attack on Serbia

Telegrams flew like missiles. The timing of them is studied still for clues in constructing revisionist histories.

Any "new" (conspiratorial) history can be created by presenting some of the evidence.

We've seen an example of this already on this thread, making out the Russians and French as the ready ones eager for war, and Germany/Austro-Hungary as the reluctant ones in 1914: utter ignoring of the documented statements and communications of the German military leaders, including the Kaiser himself, pointing clearly to the readiness and eagerness they shared in seizing the moment (seen as their last chance) to start the needed and desired war….

The Germans were terrified that the Russian rebuilding of their army (from 1905) and their military industrial base, plus the construction and expansion of their railroad system (heavily paid for by French loans) would put German at a huge disadvantage. Only as long as they were not forced to fight a 2-front war did the Germans think they could win big and fast. Their entire strategy was based on a slow reacting Russia, while German forced a victory over France.

Their tipping point date for the Russians to have recovered and able to react was 1916, so going to war in 1914 made perfect sense to the Germans.

Dan

Well so far we've had people posting trying to blame Russia , France , and Serbia for starting the war – I'm just waiting for someone to post blaming Britain !
The fact is that Germany and Austria were responsible and without the Austrian July ultimatum and attack on Serbia ( backed by the German ' blank cheque ' ) there would have been no Great War.

And "I" would never have become an "ace", hahah….

For the dedicated conspiracy theorists, why didn't the Austrians beef up security for Franz Ferdinand's state visit?

He was somewhat sympathetic to the Serbian cause, was seen as a moderniser who was thought capable of upsetting the Austro-Hungarian status quo, and had a 'dreadfully common' wife. In short he wasn't very popular amongst his peers in the Austro-Hungarian establishment. How convenient that he was such a poorly protected target on that day ……

And was Princep acting alone? Are there any grassy knolls in Sarajevo?

The Serbian government did not back or support the assassination attempt.

I didn't say that they did. Only that there were groups within Serbia with links to the government. It doesn't change the fact that Serbia regularly called for what would effectively be the dissolution of the Hapsburg state in its newspapers, in speeches by individuals and even in schoolbooks.
I certainly don't deny that Austria wanted war with Serbia. Conrad von Hotzendorff argued for preventative war continuously. But he had been denied several times in the past by Franz Josef – 'My policy is a policy of peace. All must adapt to this policy of mine' was his comment in 1912 that led to Conrad's resignation. By 1914, the mood of the old Emperor had changed. Although he didn't care for his nephew, he could not tolerate Serbia's provocations anymore. The Serbian 'Viper' as Conrad put it would have to be dealt with. Even the Russian minister Sazonov believed that Serbia needed to be 'taught a lesson.'
The security of the Austrian state was threatened. Germany was turned to for reassurance, and Germany, with no other allies, had to back Austria. An Austria that fell apart would lead to the total isolation of Germany – surrounded to the West and East by hostile nations. The 'blank cheque' was perceived to be essential for German security, despite the fact that the German ambassador was not himself convinced.
What surprised Vienna and Berlin was that Russia would fight. Russia had been dismissed as weak and likely to blow a lot of hot air but not actually intervene. They did not realise that there had been a shift in the Russian government at the highest levels that they could not afford any more damage to their prestige. The Tsar had told Pasic in February 1914 that '[Russia] will do everything for Serbia.' This contrasted with the 'peace at any price' policy' that had existed until 1914 following the serious damage done from the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 revolution.

For those that fall for the Fischer thesis which quotes primary sources to establish a conspiracy amongst German leaders to have a war sooner rather than later, it is necessary to understand that there were many conversations like that in the years leading up to the war. Here is Sukhliminov's response to Sazanov's criticism's of wanting war in 1912 – 'We shall have war anyway. We cannot avoid it and it would be more profitable for us to begin it as soon as possible.'

The fact is that the peace ended in 1914 because no-one was prepared to preserve it in Vienna, Berlin, or St Petersburg. Thus a localised Balkan affair became global. The reasons for World War are much more nuanced than Austria and Germany planned it and wanted it.

But – you did say…

People often say that Serbia couldn't have started WWI because it is too small, and to an extent they are right. But the revolution that changed the Serb government earlier in the century effectively changed Serbia from an Austrian friend into a state with a Pan-Slavist and irridentist ideology which proved an existential threat to the Hapsburg empire.

…which implies that (i) to some extent they are also wrong and that Serbia was responsible for starting the Great War to some degree ; and (ii) the Serbian state was following a Pan-Slavist , irridentist policy which it wasn't. I don't believe you could say that the creation of a Jugoslavia would have posed a threat to the existence of the Austro-Hungarian empire either , although certainly to Austrian control of Bosnia – the ' Narodna Odbrana ' movement was a reaction to the Austrian annexation of Bosnia in 1908. So you could say that Austria made a rod for it's own back in this case.
As the Serbian reply to the Austrians stated : " The Royal Government cannot be held responsible for manifestations of a private character , such as articles in the press and the peaceable work of societies – manifestations which take place in nearly all countries in the ordinary course of events and which , as a general rule , escape official control. " The Serbian government did not ' sponsor terrorist actions on Austrian soil ' as you state above. If Cma Ruka or Mlada Bosna had been found to have been working on behalf of the Serbian government then Austria would certainly have been justified in demanding strong reparations – but this wasn't the case. Certainly Serbia was an annoyance and a thorn in the side of the Hapsburgs , but it was hardly a threat to the existence of the Empire.
We know the Austrians wanted to crush Serbia , and the assassinations provided the excuse for this , but Germany did not have to provide a ' blank cheque ' to the Austrians – or indeed any cheque at all. Austria was not going to fall apart over the assassination and indeed Austria needed Germany just as much to avoid isolation as Germany needed her. If Germany had not provided any help , Austria would neither have abandoned the Central Powers alliance or collapsed in a heap. She could have sought financial reparations from Serbia instead.
The reason the ' blank cheque ' was given was that the Kaiser was now in the war camp – ' Now or never the Serbs must be disposed of and that right soon ! '.
Lets not be disingenous here : whereas Berlin might have hoped the Russians would not intervene , the Austrians must have known that the Russians would come to the aid of the Serbians , given their plans to completely crush Serbia and dismember it. That's why they needed German support to act.

For those that fall for the Fischer thesis which quotes primary sources to establish a conspiracy amongst German leaders to have a war sooner rather than later, it is necessary to understand that there were many conversations like that in the years leading up to the war. Here is Sukhliminov's response to Sazanov's criticism's of wanting war in 1912 – 'We shall have war anyway. We cannot avoid it and it would be more profitable for us to begin it as soon as possible.'

The fact is that the peace ended in 1914 because no-one was prepared to preserve it in Vienna, Berlin, or St Petersburg. Thus a localised Balkan affair became global. The reasons for World War are much more nuanced than Austria and Germany planned it and wanted it.

This is not true. Whereas Austria wanted to partition Serbia and was set on war in the Balkans , it did not want a World War or a war with Russia. Austria was hoping Germany could limit Russian intervention in the conflict.
The Russians most definitely did not want a war : Sazonov said to the Austrian ambassador on hearing about the July ultimatum : " You mean to make war on Serbia…You are setting fire to Europe…Why was Serbia given no chance to speak and why the form of an ultimatum ? The fact is you mean war and you have burnt your bridges…One sees how peace loving you are. ". Moscow advised Serbia to offer the least resistance to the Austrians , it tried to extend Austria's dealine for Serbia's reply and it only agreed to a partial mobilisation of the army ( to convey the message that Russia was ready to act if necessary , but not to provoke Germany or Austria with a full mobilisation ) – hardly abandoning the peace ! In fact the Serbian government accepted the ultimatum because Moscow told them that this was the best course of action.
So now we must turn to Germany. According to Albert Ballin the German Foreign Office was full of ' disappointment ' when the Serbians accepted the ultimatum , but this turned to " tremendous joy " when a correction was received. The Kaiser was not recalled from his North Sea cruise because , according to the German Foreign Office , ' on the contrary , everything must be done to ensure he does not interfere in things with his pacifist ideas '. The German general staff saw the crisis as ' an opportunity rather that a threat '. When the Kaiser heard that the Serbians accepted the ultimatum , Wilhelm claimed it was " a capitulation of the most humiliating kind , and as a result every cause for war falls to the ground… every cause for war has vanished ". However he was not allowed to mediate – Falkynhayn told him that he " no longer had control of the affair in his own hands ". Edward House told Woodrow Wilson that the German military oligarchy were " determined on war… prepared to dethrone the Kaiser the moment he showed indications of taking a course that would lead to peace. " and Gottlieb von Jagow , the Foreign Secretary , cabled Vienna on July 27th 1914 essentially ordering the Austrians to get on with their invasion.
Thus it's pretty clear that the German general staff wanted a war with Russia from this , and they effectively thwarted the efforts of the Kaiser to prevent it. In the end no matter what Russia did could have prevented a World War as Germany declared war on the Russians on August 1st , determining events for them: Falkynhayn and Bethmann had already decided war was going to be declared even if the Russians asked to negotiate.

I don't believe you could say that the creation of a Jugoslavia would have posed a threat to the existence of the Austro-Hungarian empire either

Certainly Serbia was an annoyance and a thorn in the side of the Hapsburgs , but it was hardly a threat to the existence of the Empire.

That is not how the principal players saw it. Franz Josef's letter to Wilhelm delivered on July 5 stated 'Though it may be impossible to prove the complicity of the Serbian Government, there can be no doubt that its policy of uniting all Southern Slavs under the Serbian flag encourages such crimes and that the continuation of this situation is a chronic peril for my House and my territories.'

Lets not be disingenous here : whereas Berlin might have hoped the Russians would not intervene , the Austrians must have known that the Russians would come to the aid of the Serbians , given their plans to completely crush Serbia and dismember it. That's why they needed German support to act.

This is the brinksmanship game. If Austria does not have German support, then war with Russia is likely. If they do have German support maybe Russia will stand on the sidelines. If they don't, Austria will have a strong alliance to help. But the key is that Serbia is the target, for all the resignation of many of the main players to the inevitability of a wider war, Austria saw Serbia as a problem that had to be dealt with.

The Serbian government did not ' sponsor terrorist actions on Austrian soil ' as you state above.

Please re-read it carefully. You used the term 'Serbians' in the original comment, so I was NOT referring to the Serbian government when saying this. Serbians most definitely DID sponsor terrorist actions on Austrian soil – it wasn't government policy, but people involved were part of the Serbian government.

Just to clarify my position, I'm not trying to completely absolve Vienna and Berlin of blame in the start of the First World War, but pointing out that Austria had a valid case for intervention in Serbia based on its own security, and that Russia was a prime mover in the Balkan War becoming global because it refused to back down based on reasons of prestige rather than security. As you stated, war in 1914 did not suit Russia – but it fought anyway. The question has to be why? Was Serbia really that vital? Even Sazonov admitted they deserved to be taught a lesson.

I've got more to write regarding the last post you made Grand Dragon, but just to let you know, I'm really enjoying this debate, and I hope other people are as well. It is important on the 100th anniversary that some of these things get thrashed out, even if people in the end just agree to disagree.

I am enjoying it. WW1 has never been a favorite subject of mine, beyond the air war. But the start of it has puzzled and fascinated me for years. I have not studied that in any depth, but the human side of why wars begin, the characters responsible, are always fascinating. And on the German side we have some very interesting psychological factors in play that are very, very old. Ditto the French. These are the two main players in the war, and they had been at each other for centuries with little or no change in their attitudes toward each other. The Kaiser was a product of German education, thoroughly indoctrinated in the mystique of his race's asserted superiority, and yet he was treated by his extended family and other contemporaries with contempt, loathing and fear. These are not insignificant causes in the German push for war. But they are also more subjective than simply examining "he said, then he said" quote mining. What the principles said is possibly less important than why. But again, this is quite subjective. History is always more subjective than objective anyway….

Sorry it has taken some time to get around to this.

The Russians most definitely did not want a war : Sazonov said to the Austrian ambassador on hearing about the July ultimatum : " You mean to make war on Serbia…You are setting fire to Europe…Why was Serbia given no chance to speak and why the form of an ultimatum ? The fact is you mean war and you have burnt your bridges…One sees how peace loving you are. ". Moscow advised Serbia to offer the least resistance to the Austrians , it tried to extend Austria's dealine for Serbia's reply and it only agreed to a partial mobilisation of the army ( to convey the message that Russia was ready to act if necessary , but not to provoke Germany or Austria with a full mobilisation ) – hardly abandoning the peace !

We now know that 'the period preparatory to war' and 'partial mobilisation' are a myth. As soon as Sazonov authorised this – before anyone else had mobilised – Russia was on a course for war. This is what tied the hands of Germany in the end. The instructions in the 'period preparatory to war' orders were to continue diplomacy in order to obfuscate Russian mobilisation and lull enemies into a false sense of security that diplomacy was still viable. St Petersburg was well aware of what it was doing.

Thus it's pretty clear that the German general staff wanted a war with Russia from this , and they effectively thwarted the efforts of the Kaiser to prevent it.

Moltke was a paranoid who knew that Germany's only chance of winning a war involved swift mobilistaion. He lived in a constant state of anxiety, and his position was that if Russia was mobilising, then Germany had to as well. It wasn't a case of wanting a war, but of wanting to make sure that their only chance of winning (as they saw it) didn't slip away before the war had even started. Certainly for this reason Moltke and Falkenhayn tried to exclude the Kaiser from any decision making.
It is ironic that although the Kaiser is often blamed as the man who set Europe on the course for war, one of the reasons that peace didn't survive was his absence from much of the decision making. For all his arrogance and unlikable personality, the Kaiser had been shown a willingness to move to a conference table in past crises. The Willy-Nicky telegrams show his true feelings regarding a war, and they were moving enough to change Nicholas' mind, until he was talked back around by Sazonov.

The French did not give a 'blank check' to the Russians. The French were allied to the Russians, knew that if the Germans declared war that they'd be the first target of a German invasion and did what they could to stave off the war.

As the Germans were allied to the Austrians Dan. We know that on Wednesday night/Thursday morning of 29/30 July the Russians basically told the French that war was imminent – again, this is before German mobilisation had happened. The French mobilised before Germany did. Germany did not force France into war, the Russian alliance did. Yes there was no alternative to the Schlieffen plan, and Germany would have attacked France as part of the war against Russia, but the important thing is the chronology – mobilisation meant war and Russia and France had mobilised against Germany. The fact that Germany declared war first was a diplomatic nicety – not an act of unprovoked aggression.
Remember also that Austria did not declare war on Russia until August 6th. Up until that point they were still living in a fantasy land where their only enemy was Serbia. Hardly an act of those wanting a wider conflict.

Although people seem to disparage 'revisionism' for some reason, it is important to realise that all history is revisionism. Th German conspiracy for war that Fritz Fischer came up with is revisionism of the previously widely held theory that Germany was not actually guilty and that Europe had 'slid' into war. There is good and bad revisionism. The good used source documents in a reasonable and not a hyperbolic way, constructs a chronology and integrates them into theories already extant. Bad revisionism places a lot of speculation into a thin argument that relies on quote-mining and focuses so narrowly on proving a thesis that it ignores other important influences. I believe that Fischer is 'bad' revisionism because he focuses very narrowly on Germany and does not take into account the wider context.
AJP Taylor's War by Timetable is too mechanical. If I can recommend any one book it is Sean McMeekin's July 1914. Even if it does not change your mind on who you ultimately blame, it is good for opening eyes to the behaviour of the principal actors. In his epilogue he gives a very balanced view of who could be held the most culpable for the outbreak of war, either by sins of commission or omission. Berchtold and Sazonov feature quite prominently. Well worth the read.

A hundred years later, are we finally beyond that historical baggage? Or are there enough vestiges of "Teutonic" and "Frankish" pride to cause a split and another war?

I think we're truly beyond it. The next big war would have to come from somewhere, something, else. Europeans have broken from the past that caused the wars of the past…

Judging by recent events, there's still enough Russian Imperial pride left to kick some things off, though I doubt it will turn into a multinational war (as opposed to a simple Russia v Ukraine fight).

What my International Relations prof put out was that it was all the alliances and the 'hair-trigger' military statuses that made the war happen. Once one of the militaries saw an event, their deployment in reaction to said event triggered other nations to deploy as well.

@Lion: Exactly. Arguments about who "mobilized" first are not going to go anywhere, since all the great European powers in 1914 were more or less mobilized already. It is a political point only, to assert that some order/command is required to create a military threat, when the armies are already in existence and only require a minor status change to put armed men in their hundreds of thousands into the field. It then becomes a question of which military system "gets there firstest with the mostest", and Germany clearly held a superiority in that regard in 1914 over Russia, not so much over France or Great Britain. But Germany tried to keep GB out of the picture, hoping vainly to be able to take on France and/or Russia without tipping the apple cart. That is called hubris.

Sequentially, if we are to say that the orders to muster (not mobilize) are the most to blame for the Great War, Austro-Hungary and Germany are most to blame, since A-H declared war first, but Germany pushed them into it with everything Germany had as compulsion. Russia's ministers knew what was happening, but depended on the entente to come to their assistance, as their mobilization into a fully-armed modern military power was still some years out: the entente would keep Germany and Austro-Hungary busy until Russia could get their "steamroller" rolling. They did want Germany as-is "annihilated", and so coming to the aid of Serbia was a natural casus belli. In order for A-H to remain at war, Germany had to fulfill its obligation to honor its "blank cheque". Germany could not wait for France to declare war first. So at each step to world war, the Central powers declared first, and thus they get the blame for the start of the war, and deservedly so, imho.

What would have happened later, if war had not happened in 1914? Germany was certain that the entente, especially Russia, wanted Germany "annihilated", i.e. the German military ministers eradicated. This was realistic, given the Teutonic tendency to war demonstrated in the past and present. So the need for self preservation was created and maintained by Germany and A-H as a fact that the entente and the rest of Europe had to live with. Would Russia have created its own pretext for total war against the Central powers after full mobilization had been achieved (by 1917)? In 1914 the imminent destruction of Nicholas and his dynasty to be replaced by the Communists was unseen. There would have been no war against Germany in 1917 either. Germany's fears, or rather the fears of the Teutonic military minds of the time, were unfounded. War was not inevitable, unavoidable or necessary, as they continually asserted to each other….