Was World War I a Necessary War?

[PBrunsel]

Was World War I a necessary war? Could the conflict have been avoided, why or why not? Had Europen mistrust made it all be impossible for the continent to avoid the bloody conflict or could cooler heads have prevailed?

I myself have pondered this question, and, knowing the European hisotry buffs we have here, I would be interested in seeing you opinions on this matter.

[Psychic Octopus]

No, It could easily have been avoided.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't know how accurate it is, but I've always gotten the impression that WWI was a rather pointless war (disjointed series of conflicts, really) that didn't need to be fought at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

     I don't know how accurate it is, but I've always gotten the impression that WWI was a rather pointless war (disjointed series of conflicts, really) that didn't need to be fought at all.

Most wars are pointless.

[SPC]

     I don't know how accurate it is, but I've always gotten the impression that WWI was a rather pointless war (disjointed series of conflicts, really) that didn't need to be fought at all.

Most wars are pointless.

Concured.

It seems like the war could have easily been avoided if the European powers were more focused on their own defense and less focused on the defense of other countries.

[Lunar]

It seemed the opposite of a necessary war. The results of the war were fascism, ethnic nationalism, the shaming/destruction ofo Germany, and the transference of colonies from one power to another.

"Necessary wars" should they exist, should accomplish something tangible like ending the Holocaust or preventing one party from destroying the world.

[© tweed]

certainly not for the United States

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Following the Second Balkan War, a war between Austria-Hungary on the one hand and Serbia and Montenegro on the other was pretty much inevitable.  Expanding the Third Balkan War into a wider war was not inevitable.

[jokerman]

Some posters are taking the word "necessary" to mean "morally justified." (that is, for the U.S.).  Taking it to rather mean an inevitable event on the chain of European history, I would almost concur.  No event is completely inevitable, but it can be argued that the entire history of Europe throughout the 19th century (markedly then, but existing also for centuries before that) of escalation of state power, arms, and rivalries made a "war to end all wars" necessary for transition into the next phase of history. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Necessary? No.

Inevitable? No, but yes (barring a revolution; the European State system had so far denegrated - if that is the right word to use - by the end of the 19th Century that some Europe wide war was extremely likely, though which side each country would be on was certainly not - as late as 1908 the British govt believed the Russian Empire to be its number one enemy(!) and of course let's not forget Italy.)

[jokerman]

I don't think degenerated is the word I would use, myself.  I don't think there is anything preferable about the centuries of feudalism and petty warfare.  Machiavelli had it right in that regard: limited aims in politics of any form is absurd.  Eventually a Napoleon or Bismark will come around to throw the less determined states around like rag dolls.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't think dengrated is the word I would use, myself.  I don't think there is anything preferable about the centuries of feudalism and petty warfare.  Machiavelli had it right in that regard: limited aims in politics of any form is absurd.  Eventually a Napoleon or Bismark will come around to throw the less determined states around like rag dolls.

Yeah Degenirated was the wrong word. Perhaps I should said the "collapse of the Holy Alliance after the 1848 revolutions and the increasing competitiveness over colonies and power which dominated late 19th Century international politics".

[minionofmidas]

Certainly perfectly avoidable in 1914. Whether some such conflagration was necessary to sweep all the evil of Germany's, Austria's and worst of all Russia's "social order" away is an interesting question...  because what came after might have worked a lot better if it hadn't been born that way.

[jokerman]

Certainly perfectly avoidable in 1914.

Yes, but it wouldn't have been postponed very long.

Perhaps if somehow hostilities between the major powers was postponed until the atomic era (and no telling how long it takes this era to occur without the impetus of war) then we could have seen no world war occur; a constant state of equilibrium.  This was the dream of many Europeans pre World War I, now that I think about it: eventually technology and reason would create a utopia.  But it was shattered utterly by World War I, and I think the chaotic nature of human intercourse meant it was destined to happen.

[Governor PiT]

No, it was only for the Balfour Declaration .

[pbrower2a]

It was the last gasp of absolute monarchs who believed that any insult to their purported honor had to be met with war.

It may have been inevitable, but it certainly wasn't necessary. I can only imagine what the Romanovs thought as they were herded to a cellar to be shot. I can only imagine what Wilhelm II thought as he fled to Holland. I can only imagine how Austro-Hungarian leadership thought as it saw its own empire collapse.

Even if it were inevitable it should have been stopped when it became a futile effort for both sides. At least one country, the United States, could long have served as an honest broker of a settlement. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It was the last gasp of absolute monarchs who believed that any insult to their purported honor had to be met with war.

It may have been inevitable, but it certainly wasn't necessary. I can only imagine what the Romanovs thought as they were herded to a cellar to be shot. I can only imagine what Wilhelm II thought as he fled to Holland. I can only imagine how Austro-Hungarian leadership thought as it saw its own empire collapse.

Even if it were inevitable it should have been stopped when it became a futile effort for both sides. At least one country, the United States, could long have served as an honest broker of a settlement. 

Perhaps, but not with Wilson as President.  He wanted the Allies to win practically form the start, but kept us out of the war at first in hopes that entry later would give him more clout to set the terms of the peace.  If Wilson had been willing to push for the United States to enter the war in early 1915, before Bulgaria entered the war on the side of the Central powers, the war might well have been over in 1916, and certainly no later than 1917, and without a Russian Revolution.

OTOH, if the U.S. had been truly neutral instead of being the Allied arms supplier in 1915 and 1916, the Central powes would have likely won the war no later than 1917, unless Britain insisted on being stubborn and keeping up the fight after France and Russia collapsed.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It would have happened sooner or later, and it probably needed to happen.  It may not have needed to happen in 1914, but it needed to happen eventually, and it would have happened eventually.

[JSojourner]

I regard US entry into the war in 1917 as necessary, and quite unfortunate.  The 1914 war was clearly unecessary.

[Earth]

It depends on whose necessity you want to attribute it to. Personally, it was completely unnecessary.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't know that it was necessary, but it was going to happen sooner or later. Pretty much every country in Europe (besides, I guess you could make the case, Britain) wanted a war.

[Coburn In 2012]

No, and its to bad we got into it because save France;s skin became something of an obsession with us for most of the century

[GMantis]

No, and its to bad we got into it because save France;s skin became something of an obsession with us for most of the century

Saving France had very little to do with entering either of the World Wars.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No, and its to bad we got into it because save France;s skin became something of an obsession with us for most of the century

Saving France had very little to do with entering either of the World Wars.

well I think you could make the case that it was a factor in entering World War I, though it certainly wasn't the only factor nor the even most important one. The Zimmerman Telegram and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare were pretty clearly the main factors, neither of which had anything to do with France. You're right about World War II though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, and its to bad we got into it because save France;s skin became something of an obsession with us for most of the century

Saving France had very little to do with entering either of the World Wars.

well I think you could make the case that it was a factor in entering World War I, though it certainly wasn't the only factor nor the even most important one. The Zimmerman Telegram and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare were pretty clearly the main factors, neither of which had anything to do with France. You're right about World War II though.

The Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare were only responsible for causing us to formally declare war and send the doughboys overseas.  We were on the Allied side by 1915 as a major supply source.  Had we not been selling the Entente Powers arms and providing them the loans to pay for those arms, the Central Powers would have won in 1916.