“it’s a fact well established in historical scholarship”
Actually, no it’s not.
“No one much argues with it anymore”
More handwaving.
Russia’s intervention into the balkans triggered the war, the war would have been localized had Russia not stepped in. Russian designs on the balkans were well attested, and the Serbs negotiated under the understanding that Russia would back them up.
You are distorting my argument here.
“But in this case, they are”
Right. Because they all agree with you. I’m disappointed. I was having an engaging discussion with you, and you haven’t understood my argument at all.
I am not a German. I just don’t feel that current scholarship which holds them responsible for both world wars is correct. The First is far different from the Second, if the Second is an extension of the first, neglects the fact that the two wars were very different from one another. I am not arguing that Germany was not responsible for the events of the second world war, I am arguing that they were not responsible for setting off the first world war.
“Actually, no it’s not.”
Yes it is. Unless you mean that in the same sense that 9/11 not being an “inside job” isn’t settled.
“More handwaving.”
You wouldn’t say that if you were familiar with the literature. I’m only repeating what I’ve heard many times from several different authors.
“Russia’s intervention into the balkans triggered the war”
Did not. Germany pulled the trigger. The guy who set off the guy who started the war was not the guy who started the war. The guy who started the war was.
“The war would have been localized had Russia not stepped in”
Perhaps, as Germany would be denied its rationalization. Still, that amounts to as much as “WWII wouldn’t have been what it was had the allies stood up to Hitler at Munich.” Maybe, but their appeasement did not start the war. Hitler did.
“Russian designs on the balkans were well attested”
Yes, obviously. Why is this an issue? If Russia considered the Balkans within their sphere of influence, how is that any different than any other power’s putative sphere? The difference is that Germany started a war to preserve and extend its sphere. Russia had “designs,” threw its weight around, “stepped in,” and so forth. But it didn’t start a war. That was left to Germany.
“You are distorting my argument here.”
I don’t see how. You’ve maintained Russia started it. All I’ve done is demonstrated they didn’t.
“The First is far different from the Second”
I honestly don’t know why people believe that. Aside from the Nazis being especially evil, that is. It is partly the blame placed on the Versaille treaty for Germany’s future woes. If the treaty was bad, it must have been wrong about “war guilt,” goes the logic.
Partly it’s the fault of misguided literature, both the imaginative variety about meaningless war and the lost generation and the prosaic variety as presented in Keynes’ “Economic Conqequence of the Peace” book and Barbara Tuchmann’s “Guns of August.”
Partly it’s because Germany had no Hitler at the time. No one to point to and say, “He started it!”
Partly it’s the whole modern drift away from power politics: the disgust with empire, the distrust of alliances, the hatred for militarism, the fear of nationalism and patriotism, and the entire modern leftist, pro-arms control ideology, holding wars happen all by themselves.
Whatever it is, it’s mistaken. Fundamentally, the wars were the same: Germany set out to conquer France and Russia, and almost did.
“if the Second is an extension of the first”
I don’t think it is. At least, not in the fatalistic manner people present it. History could always have gone differently. There are billions of ways Germany would have been prevented from starting a second giant 20th century war.