Chapter One: Ready and Willing

I found the first chapter of this book a succinct and enjoyable introduction to the protagonists & antagonists (the definition depends on how you view the conflict!) that contributed to the build-up & eventual hostilities of the First World War. The author's argument, that of the belligerent's readiness & willingness to go to war, was successfully backed with comprehensive evidence.

The author provided intricate details not just of the industrial & societal enthusiasm for war of the classic antagonists (Austria-Hungary & Germany); but also of the French & Russian Empires. 

Russia & France became allies in 1892 (22 years before the start of WW I), specifically to act as a counter-balance to future German aggression. One interesting example was the state visit of Raymond Poincare (The French President) in July 1914. On examination of the Russian Army, Poincare felt confident in Russian strength in the event of hostilities with Germany, which was to prove a significant error of judgement. 

Russian Soldiers marching to the Front (Didn't have sufficient Trains to get them there!)

In the case of the Tsar, the lack of military, society & industrial modernity would eventually lead to the downfall of his Empire & the execution of his family. It is surprising that the French held the forces of the Russian Army in such high regard, especially given that in 1905 the Russian Navy suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Japan (despite the epic nature of the journey they made to get there!). This lack of understanding of the backwardness of Russia probably contributed to the firm French & British response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. I found it interesting as well to compare the response of the "Allies" in WW I (firm & non-negotiable) to that of WW II (policy of appeasement) - which both failed to stop either conflict. 

The gradual decay of the British Empire had already begun with the Boer fiasco & continued trouble in far-flung India & China. The aggressive foreign policy of the Kaiser prior to WW I, best demonstrated by his increase in military expenditure, didn't sit well with the fears of a crumbling (although slowly) global Empire. It was facing an expansionist Empire at a time it must have realised it had passed it's own zenith. For sure the threat of German invasion was in the public mind (see - Riddle of the Sands, Erskine Childers). Hence defensive measures were taken, specifically the Alliance with France in 1912 which split the responsibilities of the allied navies in the event of a War. Britain was definitely "ready & willing" to go to war. 

"The Riddle of the Sands" - Erskine Childers

I found very interesting the link of the military, industrial & political institutions in the Second Reich. The political make-up of Germany was dominated by the militaristic Prussians, who were happily making war with France throughout the 1800s (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian 1870), annexing Alsace Lorraine & applying embarrassing requirements on the French (sound familiar?). The industrial revolution which could be argued started in Britain, was being applied in Germany on a much more efficient scale (a constant German trait!). The synergy of military & industry which inevitably arose led to a self-propagating increase in military expenditure & readiness for war. Alfred Krupps (Arms Manufacturer) & Kaiser Wilhelm II could claim the world's first modern "military-industrial complex" which has been honed to a fine art by our current lone Superpower. Like the German Empire in 1914, the US is trigger-happy when it comes to war-making & the powers-that-be in either society benefit from a higher demand of their weapons. 

"Big Bertha" - German Howitzer, Made by Krupps WW I

This decaying of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on the other hand, was not gradual (like the British) but explosive. One of the primary differences between these failing Empires was that most British subjects tended to live in the Far East, of which the presence of the British overlords was not all-encompassing like that of the Austro-Hungarian subjects. These subjects of the house of Habsburg were unsuccessfully integrated within the borders of the Balkans & the "home" country (Austria) itself. Ethnic divisions & nationalism were, in my opinion, the primary causes of the First (and it could be argued, Second) World War. It is not unsurprising that the First World War was sparked within the fractious multi-ethnic AH Empire. 

The emergence of nationalism, in all it's various forms, was the primary ingredient to the explosive reaction that led to the War. It happened most aggressively in Germany, with the dangerous combination of Prussian self-belief in Germanic racial superiority & late arrival to the Empire table leading to an aggressive, nationalist & racist agenda. It also happened all over the Balkans, including Serbia, who have always suffered greatly under the yoke of foreign rule (Ottoman Turks & AH atrocities). 

It is not unsurprising that the first major conflict between the Great Powers of Europe since the start of the Industrial Revolution would lead to a much larger death-toll than any that came before it. The arms race that pre-dated the War, as well as the rapid increase in armaments production due to improving manufacturing processes, contributed greatly to the huge numbers of dead men littering the fields of France, Belgium & the Middle East during 1914-18. The rapid advancement of society since Napoleon had resulted in a reduced understanding of how to fight a war such as WW I.

The main points made in this chapter are thus summed up as follows: 

Each Power was "ready & willing" to fight, best demonstrated by the increased rate of armaments production, the growth of nationalism across Europe & the belligerency of the Powers themselves.