World War I: The Real Reason the Great War Happened

Hmmmm... I think not.

End Of Empire - by Brian Lapping
Trading With The Enemy - by Charles Higham
Imperial Cruise - by James Bradley

The first world war (WW1) was not the first of the money wars, but it was the first money war where the bankers decided who the winners and losers were going to be. A stooge is needed to pull off false flag operations to facilitate the march to war. Most notably, Japanese troops "being attacked by Chinese" on the Marco Polo bridge in the 30's, "Polish troops attacking the German border" in 1939, etc. But the boardrooms had been deciding the course of action for decades previously. A similar false flag had to come to play to bring the world to war in WW1. This all fell in to place quite easily and new "empire builder" player, America, was given a ring side seat. Britain started the new century heading towards bankruptcy and decisions were being made to pare down the empire with an eventual dismantling of the empire by 1950. Belgian, Italian, Russian and German empires were quite small and "growth" was needed to stimulate the main players on the world political scene.

So if WW1 was that simple, why the heinous loss of life? A string of firsts. Warfare had been static for quite a few centuries. Little tech was introduced. A finding here, an invention there, but nothing on the scale that WW1 had. Recall that in days of old, the artillery had the rightly ascribed name "King of Battle" as it was the game changer. While calibers increased over the years, the employment tactics hadn't varied much. Naval tech likewise was pretty stereotypical. The artillery pounded the enemy, infantry lined up to test marksmanship with a foe and then at the opportune moment, cavalry rode in to disrupt enemy formations, enabling a closing of ranks where it was hoped that one's dilligent marksmanship training and bayonet work would save the day. After said battle, the opponents would shake hands, trade a banner or two and both sides would go back home. This pretty much stayed the same for LONG time.

WW1 introduced automatic weapons, WMD and range. Powder advances gave artillery long ranges and larger payloads. Machine guns enabled an un-trained peasant to kill several hundred professionally trained soldiers. Note that French and Russian soldiers for the first few years of WW1 continued to have gaudy, colorful uniforms with no camo/protection features. Helmets were not quite a mandatory piece of tech. Intel, likewise was in its infancy. A plane that didn't shoot at you was ignored. Little did troops in the trenches know that the un-firing plane was writing down positions and strength. The artillery wasn't really that much deadlier, its just that you were easier for artillery to find. Gas was introduced and like the machine gun, was an easy way to kill large amounts of the enemy in one go. Put gas in an artillery shell or plane and the dynamic changed considerably. The "old way" of war was rifle work pure and simple. So a lot of soldiers ran out of the trenches expecting to survive the "trip" to the enemy line. Long range machine gun fire took out a lot of un-suspecting troops. Actions that we take for granted today, like seeking cover when you hear a machine gun was un-heard of back then. Entire battalions were mowed down in one sitting.

Tank warfare enabled a machine gun to reach the enemy un-opposed. This would create its own hell on the battlefield and replace cavalry as the feather in the cap on the battlefield that it had been.
Strategic and tactical bombing enabled the war to be brought home. This widened the front and made the war a lot more global than a lot of people were expecting. Ships likewise turned their attention to sinking supply ships with German submarines coming close to starving Britain. The military dynamic of leadership changed. British and German generals were allowed to dictate tactics and employ their men as they saw fit. That all changed after WW1. Too many people dying - able to die - in one day.