One of the most interesting aspects, at least to me, of WWI and the events leading into it is the continual moves made on all sides that are lacking in any common sense. The textbook makes note of this at several points and my personal favorite is in the last paragraph of page 23, discussing the almost incomprehensible reasoning behind Germany’s beginning acts of war. “There was certainly no logic in the decision by the German General Staff that, in order to support the Austrians in a conflict with Russia over Serbia, Germany should attack France… and do so by invading Belgium.”

In the years preceding the war, a good number of political decisions made on all sides made no logical sense, most of all the alliance systems. Historically, alliances are formed because nations are on good terms or have a unifying religion/ideology, but not in these cases. Besides a  uniting fear of Germany, France and England hate each other’s guts; Russia really doesn’t fit in anywhere because of its autocracy and lack of civil rights; and Italy is basically just a spectator hoping someone will get into a fight.

As a side note, somewhere in the reading Howard mentions a prediction made before the outbreak of war (by a Polish man, I think) though I can’t find it in the text now. I think that an even better example of pre-war predictions would have been the 1914 Durnovo Memorandum, in which a Russian statesman hashes out, with stunning accuracy, the war and a good number of its outcomes.

http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/durnovo.html

It’s a pretty fascinating read