In the plethora of commentary on the centenary of WW1, this aspect of the origins has been largely overlooked of that murderous conflict. McMeekin makes good this omission with a vengeance, shining a beam on Russia’s culpability in the gestation of the disaster.
That war should break out in Europe was a inevitability. Edward VII said war could not be avoided, but we should be fully prepared to meet its consequences. None of the European leaders wanted war, it was the men below them who did. Austria wanted to neutralise Serbia, Russia lusted over the possession of Constantinople, Germany feared encirclement and Russian industrial expansion, France wanted revenge for the war of 1870. England was indifferent to all this Continental squabbling, she had an empire to administer. Unfortunately, England was central to the calculations of the protagonists. Russia and France would not go to war without England while Germany wanted a neutral Britannia. In July and August 1914, the diplomatic lie machine was cranked up.
Russia was ahead, planning for war as early as 1912, as had Austria. The war party in Vienna had been looking for an excuse to obliterate Serbia for some years previous, as early as the beginning of the century. Unknown to Austria, the pot was being quietly stirred from St Petersburg. The Russians were au fait with the plot to assassinate the Archduke, indeed the order to proceed with the atrocity was not given until the Russian Military Attaché in Belgrade had signalled his consent, then conveniently left town for a few days in order to avoid accusations of having fired the starting pistol.
The war parties in the various states went to great lengths to ensure their desires were not thwarted at the last minute. Telegrams between the Tsar and Kaiser were held back to block any chance of rapprochement. England only entered the war in support of Belgium, whose independence she had guaranteed the previous century, but Holland had given similar pledges, yet sensibly saw no reason to enter the conflict.
The war would have ended quite swiftly if Russia had done what was expected of her by the allies, only Russia had another agenda. Most of her troops were poured into Galicia, which was quickly overcome. If Russia had put those troops into East Prussia, the war would have been over in months and the history of the Twentieth Century been vastly different.
The entry of Turkey into the fray, gave St. Petersburg the opening she had been planning for, the prize, Constantinople. Hear, Russian duplicity was given another airing.
England was to attack at Gallipoli, Russia the other end of the straits, this would have the effect of splitting the Turkish army, a good plan, however, while Russia wanted Constantinople, she thought it preferable that someone else procured the trophy on her behalf, and only lobbed a few shells on the shore, leaving the Turkish army free to slaughter the allies at Gallipoli.
By 1917, most of Russia’s war aims in the Balkans and Persia had been achieved had been achieved, these gains were negated when Lenin grabbed power and signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This betrayal was not because he hated war, Lenin needed the troops to fight his battles in Russia.
So, who bears ultimate responsibility for WWI? The answer to that question has to be Austria, who was determined come what may to destroy Serbia, the other parties merely reacted to events, or if you prefer, carped the diem.
Sean McMeekin has written a brilliant outline of a frequently overlooked aspect of the war. A broader coverage of the conflict id contained in his July 1914. Both these volumes stamp him a pre-eminent chronicler of these times.
Stephen Maybery,
2014.
I will have to re-read Barbara Tuchman’s book, The Guns of August. I remember being pretty convinced originally – which was the early 1970s!! – that it was the fault of the Germans and their impetuous implementation of the Schlieffen Plan. I will see if I can get hold of the McMeekin when next in Hong Kong though. Does he refer to Tuchman I wonder?
Wars are always about leaders who succeed is whipping up their public’s sentiment of righteous indignation against an Enemy. In the case of WW1, it was the Hapsburg Franz-Joseph who tilted against the rebellions of the Nations of Europe in the mid-19th Century and went his own way with autocratic rule of his glorious Empire. Poor old Franz-Joseph, you can pity him as you pity the dinosaurs. The masculine code of honour whereby any slight and the two protagonists would engage in an elaborate dual just as many males of the Animal Kingdom, only made lethal by the use of modern weaponry. The puzzle is Germany. Why the Kaiser decided to invade Westwards when the main enemy was Russia (and Serbia for the Austrians) to the East is only comprehensible to Germans. Something to do with wanting an Empire of their own, ask the Germans what that was all about.