Talk:Causes of World War I/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Intro the assination of the Archduke was a conspiracy involving 8 individuals and a foreign government devised by the Okrana; shouldn't this be stressed more in the opening? Nobs 04:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | ā | Archive 5 |
Yikes! Okrana involvement is a myth. Evidence points only to the involvement of the Russian Military Attache's office, General Artamonov (a colonel at the time) and War Minister Werchovsky (a captain at the time [yes promoted to war minister from captain in two years...only a spook could do it]). There is no evidence regarding where the Attache's office was getting its instructions.
Werchovsky 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Peregrine: "the war blame tended to be placed on all participants more or less equally", where does this come from? Seems I recall extensive discussion of Germany's War guilt. Nobs 17:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Nobs && Peregrine: That would seem to be my recollection and what is documented at Aftermath of World War I#Treaty of Versailles as well. -- Mucus 19:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Immediately after the war there was some tendency to blame Germany on the part of the Allies, mostly by the people involved and the national governments. However, in Germany there was a lot of work done to try to disprove claims that they had "started" the war for obvious reasons. There was some sympathy for this in the United States, and a fair amount of academic work in the 20s and 30s became more balanced. (Although many people continued to write one sided accounts for personal reasons). I will try to elaborate on this at some future time, but will be busy for some days. Any help with this section is much appreciated as I'm basically piecing it together from memories of university. Peregrine981 08:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- The whole issue of German war guilt and reparations is what ultimately can be traced to the cause of the rise of Adolf Hitler. Germany was not a party to "negotiations" of theVersailles Treaty, hence it was refered to commonly as "Das Diktat" or the "Veersailles Diktat" in Germany in the 1920's. Yes, later the Dawes Plan and other plans helped Germany with reparations, but the government of France was unwaivering in its efforts to collect reparation payments (even to the extent of seizing factory machinery factory machinery). Nobs 16:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, but within the academic interpretation of the war the emphasis has shifted to and from German war guilt. national governments still adhered to the German war guilt theory. We might also want to check into differences in national historiography for their interpretations. Peregrine981 03:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- We need to clarify what is generally understood and accepted today vs common popular sentiments of that era after the war (after all, even "world public opinion" is cited as a cause of Germany's defeat in 1918 by reporting from that era, despite the fact militarily Germany was not defeated on the battlefield. Nobs 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Peregrine: The Historiography section is brilliant (don't let me interrupt if you're not done with it yet). Perhaps some reference like "unresolved issues over War guilt were a cause of World War II" or your own words to that effect. Good work! Nobs 18:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement. I have added some reference to war guilt in Germany leading to the Nazis. Feel free to elaborate if you wish. I have gone almost as far as quick internet searches and my memory permit. Unfortunately I don't have access to a library where I live, so I am frustrated in my attempts to expand the details of the early period which is quite neglected by the internet.Peregrine981 11:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I live in the library here where I'm online (though) the hours are shortened cause semester just ended. List the references & what you're looking for, I'll assist.. Nobs 00:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. If I recall correctly a good summary is found in a book by the name of The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus by Annika Mombauer. Published in London: Longman, 2002.
- I'm looking for is some discussion of the earlier years of historiography between 1920 and 1960. Thanks for whatever you can do! Peregrine981 01:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm on it tomorrow AM. Talk to me on User_talk:Nobs and maybe we can get some realtime discussion going. Any specific questions ready? AJP Taylor's Origins of the First World War is also very good. Also, I'd like to make the link between Black Hand and Okhrana, then rewrite the opening. As traditionally all references to WWI begin with the assassination, maybe demonstrating that it was the covert activity of an foreign intelligence bureau of a putative Head of State that preciptitated the war may have some impact on the issue of War guilt. Nobs 03:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes there is confusion between Russian Military Intelligence and the Okhrana. There is no credible evidence of Okhrana involvement in the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. There is however extensive evidence of Russian Military Intelligence involvement through Artamonov and Werchovsky in turn acting through the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dimitrievic. Albertini, for one, deals with this issue (although since Dimitrievic's confession was suppressed at the time, a sworn confession to the Serbian Court wherein he states that Russia funded the hit) he could not state with certainty that Russia had been the sponsor of the assassination. Werchovsky 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Should the Finnish Civil War be included in the Contemporary conflicts section? It was, in many ways, a part of this all. --HJV 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)