Talk:Causes of World War I

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)

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)

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)

Berlin - Bagdad Railway

The Bagdad Railway was considered an encrouchment upon British interests in India (and Persian Gulf). Britian felt disrupting the Suez-Aden-Bombay shipping line could split India, Singapore and Hong Kong away from the British Empire. This parellals some work I'm doing on St. John Philby, regarding the Baghdad-Damascus-Jerusalem-Mecca railway line; in otherwords if this idea was ever constructed, a Muslim could make the Hajj by rail from Berlin. Nobs 18:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps simple language like this:

The Berlin-Bagdad Railway was feared in London as an attempt to split the British Empire in two.

Nobs01 14:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems good. Were the British the only power concerned about the railroad? If not we should mention that as well. Also, might be good to include information about German strategic motivations, such as concern about being surrounded. Peregrine981 15:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Berlin-Bagdad railway project was one of several large railway enterprises being considered in the Guilded Age. In America, it was the cross continent linking the Atlantic to the Pacific at Promontory, Utah; in Russia it was the Trans-Siberian Railroad; in Africa it was Cecil Rhodes' Cairo to Capetown Railway; the French Empire envisioned an attempt to "ring the Meditterranean" by rail (I think the Orient Express out of Paris was the first leg of it, and it envisioned linking Morroco to Cairo etc); and the Germans envisioned the Orient Express being extended into the Berlin-Bagdad Railway, which both the British Empire & French Empire feared threatened British & French interests East of Suez. It was at a minimum considered "colonial competition", and would cross what later became the Sykes-Picot line [1] defining British-French interests.(It should be noted, the Berlin-Bagdad Railway was not the only great envision railway building scheme that failed). Nobs01 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berlin-Baghdad Railway - Soon after the Oriental Railway had transported its first passengers through the Balkans to Constantinople in 1888, German bankers received permission from Turkish leaders to construct a railway deeper into Turkey. By 1903, other nations in Europe had realized that Germans were planning to construct a railway which would provide a rail link from Germany to the Persian Gulf. This would have given Germany open access to African colonies, trade with India, and oil from Iraq. The new and huge impact of oil as fuel was recognised by the British, for its impact on German industrial and growing naval potential (see Engdahl). The Suez Canal and the British control of shipping could be avoided by rail, and German power would threaten the British, French and Russian entente. They feared the Baghdad Railway would permit Germans to dominate the political and economic arenas of Europe (see Jastrow).

Why should this have been removed? Is it false? It seems well referenced, and relevant to the causes of WWI, no to mention the establishement of Kuwait as a buffer country to protect the Persian gulf from rail-port accessibility.Bcameron54 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

it was removed because historians do not include it anymore. back in 1910 to 1914 British pulicists warned about the German RR. But historians do not think it was very important. German trade was small and of course the British dominated the Indian Ocean. Rjensen 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to modern British and American historians? These have been known to be unbalanced in perspective, at times. I refer you to WF Engdahl's "A Century of War" which you did not delete from references, for a non-Anglo account. Your dismissal of Jastrow's account (not a British publicist) is not supported, except by your statement. Good referencing meets Wikipedia standards. The fact that some historians do not say so and some do, makes it relevant. The fact the the British controlled the Indian ocean and continued to do so does not speak to the percieved German threat, nor British policy at the time.Bcameron54 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I appreciate the attempt to summarize in the introduction, but what exactly does this mean, "The top governing of the monarchies"? I don't think that is a clear explanation.Peregrine981 14:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Answer: I agree (I wrote the summary). Perhaps it is a bad header...I meant the complex governmental relationship between the existing monarchy and the emerging "democratic" governing. Do you understand what I mean?

At the moment I do not however how to formulate a better entry - please have a try at it! Regards, Dennis : Dna-Dennis 14:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Communication Issues

I wonder if we could provide some concrete examples of how telegraphic slowness and communication issues contributed to the war? As it stands now it isn't really clear. Trains and automobiles were also slower, but did that contribute to the war? I seem to remember a story, possibly apocryphal, of one Russian general's decision to cut the wires after the general mobilization order had been issued, so that it couldn't be withdrawn. Peregrine981 12:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what you're referring to, after the General (but not the partial) mobilizationorder was withdrawn (the Czar was getting cold feet) Janushkevich remarked to Sazonov that when the order was reissued he would "smash his telephone" and otherwise ensure that he could not be reached by another cancellation. I don't know if he actually did anything to that effect, and am quite certain it had no impact on events. --Loje 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, I guess I should have thought of it when I made the contribution. I wrote it after I had read the book "Thirteen days" (I've listed it in "sources") but it was a library book, which I now have returned. :( Either I have to borrow it again, or we could try to find some info on the internet. By the way, since you seem to be interested in the causes, I recommend that book. But beware, even though it is not a particularly long book, I found it very complicated, as it covered the diplomacy of those 13 days in quite extreme detail. It took me a while to dig through it...

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 11:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look into this book when I get a chance, although I have no access to a library at the moment so it may have to wait a while. I'll look around for examples as I get a chance. Peregrine981 04:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

french domestic politics and the break up of WW1

I added a short chapter on the role of domestic french politics in the causes of world war 1 Could anybody comment ?

The Rise of Nationalist Sentiment

I am surprised to see no mention of Italy's unification and irredentism ("Italia irredenta") and of the French revenchism about Alsace-Lorraine in the ideological origins of WW1.

I feel that the whole article - however very interesting - is written from a british point of view as if WW1 was an anglo-german war!

The lack of a section on the domestic tensions of Austro-Hungary while there are mentions of the domestic politics of France & Germany, is also surprising. The Austro-Hungarian empire is perhaps the only participant whose domestic situation is generally accepted as a key reason for its decision to go to war.

I think a major revision of this article is in order

This article is kind of a mess. There's a lot of useful specific material here, but a lot of general statements that aren't really defensible (calling the dominant forces in the Third Republic "left wing" is most certainly wrong, for instance). More than that, though, this article seems completely disorganized. There's no logical order to it, and it doesn't give anywhere near a competent narrative of the July Crisis, which should be at least one of the key elements of an article on the origins of World War I. And why on earth is there a section about the Congress of Vienna?

I would suggest a pretty substantial rewriting, and even more so a reorganization of the article. I would suggest that the article begin with a summary of European diplomatic history starting with the unification of Germany in 1871. The level of detail would be very light for 1871-1890, rather more detailed for 1890-1905, quite detailed for 1905-1914, and extremely detailed for June 28 - August 4 1914. After this material, we could return to discussion of various ideological, structural, and so forth, causes of the war, and have a discussion of the historiography. I'd be happy to take a gander at reworking the thing, but I'd like to hear what the people who've worked on it have to say before I do anything. john k 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1/ from 1899 to WWI, or to be more precise from June 22, 1899, when Waldeck Rousseau was appointed "President du Conseil" (head of the government) the left parties were in charge, first the "bloc des gauches" (1899-1905) and later a string of socialists and "radicaux", except for the period 14/01/1912-21/01/1913, when Poincare, a pragmatist, was "President du Conseil". It can therefore be said that the left parties were the dominant forces in France during that period.

2/ the Congress of Vienna shaped Europe for the XIX century and some causes of WWI can certainly be traced back to this time. Some historians even go back to the treaty of Westphalia!

3/ it is true that this article should be reorganised. Ideological, structural and factual causes are not clearly distinct. The summary suggested by john k seems more sensible.

4/ this said, the story of the July crisis can be found anywhere and does not give any information on the deep roots of WWI. It should be clearly explained, but should not be the main part of the article. Jsoufron 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "the story of the July Crisis can be found anywhere?" This is an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to be comprehensive, not to be original. The account of the July Crisis should not dominate the article, but it should be one of the major components of it. john k 20:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The words "July crisis" are not even cited in the article, and it is plainly not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. But after a good description of this crisis, it must be made clear that most historians do not accept to hold it as the real origin of the war, except if one believes in the theory of the "war by schedule" or of the "powder keg". More remote causes form, to quote James Joll, "a pattern of concentric circles", or I would rather say an entangled net of mutual influences, and the tricky part of the job is to give a clear account of this complexity.213.103.23.75 16:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that, prior to 1899, which is the period apparently under discussion, the sort of centrist republican pragmatists dominated the Third republic. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the dominant force were the radicals, along with various apostate former socialists, who can hardly be described as genuinely "left-wing," except on church-state issues. The Third Republic was born out of the suppression of the Commune, and, no matter how they labelled themselves, it was always dominated by the people who thought that was the right thing to do. The actual socialists were politicall marginalized until the 1930s, and, in general, any leftish group became conservative when it actually got into power. The Third Republic was not leftist in any real sense, even when being governed by governments officially "of the left." (The Clemenceau government, recall, was best known for strike-breaking. And so forth).

And while a brief mention of the Congress of Vienna is perhaps in order, the international system as it existed in 1914 was much more the product of the mid-century unifications. I'm not sure which of the causes can genuinely be traced back to the Congress of Vienna - the Balkans, which were the main immediate cause, were not dealt with by Vienna, and most of the other issues had to do with other states' worries and/or dislike for a strong German state which didn't exist at the time of Vienna. john k 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the Third Republic (1870-1940) was at first intended to be a temporary system in a country where public opinion strongly favoured the restoration of monachy. But public opinion changed quickly and as early as 1877, the general election sent back a wide republican majority to the parliament. Then gradually this majority swung to the left. Of course left side politicians of the time could look rather strange by modern standards: strong nationalists and even bellicists, colonialists (with often more than a hint of racism), sometimes male chauvinists, and so on. But they were definitely "left wing" for their time. As for the Commune of Paris, we must see it without romantism : it was a very extremist and violent revolt, closely related to the great blood bath of the French Revolution called "la Terreur", and in turn a great source of inspiration for Lenin and Stalin. "Genuine" left side politicians had no hesitation about the necessity to stop it. 83.177.250.205 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Balkan Wars & Russian Dom. Pol.

Shouldn't there be a small section on the Balkan wars and other events in the Balkans that are part of the causes of the war? Possibly also Turkey's problems, and rise of Serbia could be put here. The "first bullet" was fired in the Balkans, after all, so it's a pretty important region to all of this. (ie what I'm proposing is adding a Balkan wars section under specific events).

Secondly, I think that Russian domestic policies should also be mentioned (similarly to the Franch policies). The internal problems in Russia (strikes, demonstrations, etc 1905-1914) led Russia to take a more aggressive stand to suppress these problems. (in short, here I propose adding a Russia section below "French Domestic Politics") --HJV 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly right. This underlines my feeling of the article beeing focused on the anglo-german relations. We need a wider point of view. Jsoufron 09:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Potsdam war council 1912

Would anyone happen to know what is the name of the article in Wikipedia that deals with this meeting? It would be nice to have the meeting included in this article. They (zee Germans) had a war council in December 1912, where (among all other things) Tirpitz said that Germany would be ready for a war in 18 months time, as the Kiel canal and the u-boot programme will be finished by then. "Surprisingly" 18 months from the meeting was, in fact, July 1914 :)--HJV 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) This comes from a book written by a German historian, Fritz Fischer, fist published in German in 1969, and later translated (Fritz Fischer, War of Illusions, German Policies from 1911 to 1914, Chatto, 1975). He quoted an entry in Admiral von Muller’s diary, December 8th, 1912, reporting a meeting involving among others the Kaiser himself, Admiral von Tirpitz and General von Moltke, where the decision to attack France and Russia was made. A one-and-a-half year delay was considered necessary for the fleet and the army to get ready, knowing that 2 or 3 years later Russia would have become too powerfull to be defeated. This is a strong point for those who advocate the German war guilt. Nevertheless, it does not prove that other governments were not following a similar war path in the same time...Jsoufron 10:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"decision was made" -- pretty strong statement. What's the exact quote? Most historians say he discussed England as a likely future enemy. That is the sort of planning every country does. See John C. G. Röhl, The Kaiser and His Court. Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany, Cambridge 1994, see [2]Rjensen 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course "decision was made" it is an overstatement and I apologize. The conclusion of the meeting (if we belive Fischer) was that a conflict was unavoidable and that Germany would have to declare war as soon as it would be ready for it. Fischer seems now to be generally accepted (he nearly lost his work as History Professor in Germany following his books' publications), but recent more comprehensive reviews show that several other countries were "on the war path" at the same time, hence the explosive evolution of the July crisis. See (if you can afford it, I only read a review!) Hamilton, Richard F., and Holger H. Herwig, eds. The Origins of World War I. New York: Cambridge University Press 550 pp., $60.00, ISBN 0-521-81735-8 Publication Date: February 2003.Jsoufron 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most recent work has tended to suggest that Fischer greatly overestimated the importance of the meeting. Basically, the question was whether Germany should go to war in December 1912, in the context of the Balkan Crisis. Tirpitz said Germany wouldn't be ready for 18 months, and others (e.g. Bethmann) also opposed war. The whole "18 months" bit was mostly a way to get the Kaiser to back down, not expressing actual plans to go to war in 18 months. It is notable that when, in July 1914, Tirpitz was consulted about whether Germany should go to war, he once again said that the fleet would not be ready for another 18 months! Fischer took this event out of context and gave it an interpretation which most historians would now agree was not correct. john k 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(This is not to say that it's inaccurate to say that "Fischer seems now to be generally accepted." I would say this is more or less true, especially since most of the essence of what Fischer said had already been said, but in a less polemical tone, by non-German historians like Albertini. But certain of Fischer's emphases are, I think, largely out of power. In particular, his argument that Germany had decided for war long before July 1914 has not been widely accepted. His argument that Germany's desire for war came out of a conscious "grasp for world power," is also outside the consensus, which more usually sees German actions as a result of pressures of German domestic politics. john k 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Starting a temp article

Hello all, I'm going to start working on a new version of this article at User:John Kenney/Causes of World War I. I'll let you know when I start to get it towards being reasonable. john k 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But first, as a preview, I've added a brief description of the July Crisis. It is pretty criminal for an article called Causes of World War I to not have any discussion of the basic chronology of the July Crisis. john k 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this does need a complete rewrite

I'm just an ip address, but I find the article as a whole very dissatisfying. I think the primary reasons for that are: 1) a much too flexible understanding of the notion of "cause" and too much deflection of attention to any number of things that might have prevented the war if they had been different and/or gave it its particular character but certainly weren't "causes" per se; 2) too much attention to the historiography and debates that are academic in a metaphorical as well as literal sense. The result is a lot of text that says too little for trying to say too much. Obviously, the July crisis is the place to start with the revision. The Austrian heir apparent was assassinated in Sarajevo. The Austrians suspected Serbian complicity, if for no other reason than where the assassination took place, and issued an ultimatum. Serbia refused the ultimatum and the Austrians declared war. From there, a system of interlocking alliances and preemptive strategies did the rest. May 29, 2006.

well that is ONE interpretation. The problem is that it does not explain why Britain and France would take millions of casualties over one more in a long series of episodes in the Balkans. (of the USA for that matter). Rjensen 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is really difficult to be clear and short about the causes of WWI. Take this example: Austria's claims about Serbia's responsibility in the assassination were founded on much more serious ground that the simple fact that it took place in Serbia; but on the other hand Serbia did not reject the ultimatum, but only a detail, that is the control of Serbian police investigations by Austria, which seems hardly enough to sparkle a war.217.19.195.242 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points - the historiography discussion is one of the few decent things about this article. I'd add that the Austrian ultimatum was purposely designed to be rejected, and that the Serbs knew quite well that their response would probably not be accepted as adequate by the Austrians. Anyway, I've not actually done much in the way of rewriting. I don't really have any books in front of me, and those I do have are mostly packed. But I definitely intend to do a rewrite. You can see my planned outline at User talk:John Kenney/Causes of World War I. Most of the sections are historiographical, but that's largely because I've reduced most of the narrative to one section "Discussion of European diplomatic history 1890-1914." Even so, I think that for any article of this sort, a structuring based around historiography is the only way to go. john k 07:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the historiography note; it is quite important and, I think, good. One thing I would like to see in a rewrite is a more comprehensive account of the nationalism issue. It really is a complex issue that is very deep indeed, which had an equally deep impact upon the entire situation. Maximilli 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ENTENTE with Britain was not an alliance

The Bitish/French Entente and the British/Russian Entente was NOT a formal alliance, in fact Germany was still banking on British Neutrality even when they had went into Luxemburg. I don't think it would be fair to list the Entente as a cause of WW1 per se, but consequence of the tension in Europe which was caused by the troulbes in the Balkans and Germany's ambition to have "its place in the sun" and upset the balance of power.

207.159.196.253 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm in a bit of a minority, but I don't really agree that a complete reworking is required. Explaining the origins in an overly chronilogical way gets very confused, so I think that making clear distinctions between the different strands of cause by type, rather than time is simpler. This way new additions can be added fairly easily without jumbling the article's chronology, which is often a problem in these articles. This article presently lays out pretty much all the main arguments in an equal manner, and then discusses the debate between these arguments and the historians who presented them, which seems to me to be the most NPOV way of doing things. And there is now a fairly detailed discussion of the July Crisis, so I don't see what the problem is. The section headings, ideological, structural, and specific, may be a bit confused, but I find it hard to group them differently. Oh, and if you think this article is bad, just wait till you see the Causes of World War II.Peregrine981 07:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Naval arms race

I deleted "Germany was hopelessly outguned" & added this:

"This ignores the self-evident fact Kriegsmarine had narrowed the gap by nearly half, and the Royal Navy had long felt (reasonably enough) a need to be stronger than any two potential oppenents; the United States Navy was in a period of growth, making the German gains very ominous, indeed."

I believe Keegan, among others, has mentioned the "2 opponent" standard. Sounds to me like somebody is a Ferguson disciple--or didn't do enough research. Trekphiler 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is, is there anyone else at all who has published work supporting this line of thinking (i.e.; the Ferguson one). His account is actually the only one I've seen purporting to debunk the naval race as a major cause. Not that it isn't compelling, I'm just wondering if other scholars agree. -Grahamdubya 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most scholars would agree that the naval race was a major cause of Anglo-German rivalry and suspicion, but I think that many have also come to the conclusion that in the Bethmann years, at least, England had already pretty clearly decisively won the naval race, and it was clear that Tirpitz would never achieve the ratios he believed he needed for the "risk theory" to work. john k 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangled history

New International Encyclopedia published in 1926 the fact that the Bagdad Railroad was one of the leading causes of World War One. "Editors" and "contributors" to Wikipedia have erased that fact from the articles that relate to the War. They've mangled history. No article related to World War One should include a picture of Napoleon Bonaparte who had been in his casket for 85 years. The War was caused by people who were alive in 1900, not by people who were alive in 1800. Colonialism and expansionism by Germany were fundamental causes of the War. GhostofSuperslum 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bagdad Railway contains a verbatim copy of the passage that is in New International Encyclopedia (published in 1926). GhostofSuperslum 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

its hard to find a historian in last 50 years who thinks Baghdad RR issue was a main issue....few even think it was a minor one. The documents were not open in 1926 when an old encyclopedia repeated the notion that the British were worried about the RR. Documents show they seldom considered it a major factor.

in last 50 years or so historians are agreed the major powers SETTLED the Baghdad RR issue before the war started, therefore it was not a cause. Specific mention - "Some of the optimism should be attributed to the willingness of the German government to compose long-standing differences. ...and in June 1914 a settlement was achieved over the Baghdad railway." from The Coming of the First World War. by R. J. W. Evans (british) and Hartmut Pogge Von Strandman (German) - Oxford UP 1990. Page 16Rjensen 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)6. Likewise this recent quote "Furthermore, many economic and colonial issues which had been causing friction between French, German and British governments before 1914, such as the financing of the Berlin-Baghdad railway and the future disposition of the Portuguese colonies, had been resolved by the summer of 1914." from The Origins of the First World War. by Ruth Henig - Routledge. 2002. Page Number: 39

The people who were alive in 1900 to 1920 knew more about the worrisome changes that the Bagdad Railway created. Later (so-called) "historians" of the last 50 years cannot assess the situation more adroitly than the people who were alive in 1900 to 1920. They had determined that a grave threat to world peace was being built. Later (so-called) "historians" should go and take a long walk on a short pier. GhostofSuperslum 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Railroad issue was settled before the war started and it was not a cause of the war. The people writing at the time did NOT have access to the secret diplomatic and military documents in which policy makers discussed the issue. Those documents are NOW open so historians now have a much better understanding of what the policy makers thought at the time. Rjensen 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

even if the issues of the railroad were settled prior to the outbreak of war it does not mean that the whole issue was not a contributing factor to the war - at the very least the railroad caused friction between the great powers in the years leading up to the war and contributed to the uncertainty and the desire for the different sides to arm. There are so many issues here that are currently being discussed and it is distressing to see that reference (and references)of these issues has been systematically removed from wikipedia. Further, even if the issue of the railroad was settled by politicians, the fact that it was kept secret from the public means that public misconception of the issues would have been a conributary factor to their willingness to accept war, regards, sbandrews (t) 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oil

One single mention of oil on the whole page and that relegated to the footnotes... Is there some kind of codeword here used for oil? sbandrews (t) 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

this is about WWI not Iraq!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.226.136 (talk)

the land area now known as iraq was in WWI, it was one of the first places the UK sent troops - oil is not a new invention, it has dominated commerce and politics since the late 19th C. sbandrews (t) 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Often the presence of a single recalcitrant Wikipedian has a drastic effect on the entries that appear on a page. In this article, someone has a dread of the Bagdad railroad, Iraq, oil, and Germany gaining access to German East Africa where there were slaves and wealth and being able to bypass the Suez Canal. Disconnected entries such as "The Schlieffen Plan" rest on the page, while Bagdad railroad is nowhere in sight, even though it was one of the major causes of World War I. GhostofSuperslum 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)