The origins of the first world war

Authors Avatar

‘The first world war was the result of long outstanding rivalries between the great powers’

How valid is this view?

‘The most disadvantageous peace is greater than the most justified war’. Believing by 1900, all leaders of Europe that understood the turmoil of the past centuries would believe in this ideal but this was not the case of the 20th centaury yet was it the desire of the war-mungerers of Europe or was it to blame by a vast number of calculus mistakes, long standing rivalries and uncontrollable circumstances that led to war? Europe, during the first early months of the year 1914 seemed to be relaxed but how in just six months could it spiral out of control and end in 60 million troops to be deployed and end with 8 million deaths?

Anglo-German relations seemed to of decreased from the bitter rivalry of the great industrial, imperial and naval disagreement. Expansion started to slow as Germany found it hard to finance such a huge navy that would struggle under the power of the Royal navy which had one policy, ‘Too be twice as big as the second and third navies combined’, which meant as any country began to show increase in naval power then Great Britain must grow to match and aspire that. After the 1871 Franco-Prussian war, the French vengeance over the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine appeared to be dwindling. R.Henig suggests improvement of diplomacy within the European countries was total illusory and fake as long-term repercussions would take their part and destroy any sympathetic relations that countries had with each other.  

Prior to 1871, Germany was completely separated into individual states that numbered 40 and no concentrated power was established as a result of different areas been industrial, agricultural and urbanised. Power was divided among small powers and there was a great balance of power in Europe, which gave a calming peace after 1815. This balance of power made nations have other interests in different locations and ideas such as Britain’s ‘Splendid Isolation’, which kept the nation out of any matters involving Europe, although Britain still recognised a European threat to its power, it lay with Belgium but the country itself was not the hostile animal that Britain feared it was the country that could control its land. ‘In  was signed by the British to defend Belgian neutrality, which was discarded by the Germans as  in 1914.’ Which seems to suggest that Germany may follow a counter move for territory gains and displace any influence or argument that Britain may include with Belgium; all Germany needed was the power and unification to mount any potential attack on a super power.

May 1848, gave the first sessions of the Frankfurt Parliament with the German states attend. Austria and Russia, fearing a strong Germany, responded by pressuring Saxony and Hanover to withdraw, and forced Prussia to abandon the scheme in a treaty dubbed the humiliation of Olmütz. Otto Von Bismarck was the leading Prussian Chief Minister who began the unification in 1871. He knew that to bring all the different societies to work as one German nation he needed a foreign triumph to unite the people into the second Reich.

‘The Prussian state under the support of the other main German states attacked a province of France called Alsace and Lorraine. France under Napoleon the third was renowned as a supreme fighting nation but the humiliating defeat caused Napoleon to resign and lead the way for the Third republic of France, as the coal and industrial fields of the French region was now under German rule’, thus starting a rivalry that made the two nations resent each other causing a long term rivalry between the two nations, while France assured itself in gaining vengeance one way or another against Germany, which inevitably could lead to war. This great victory and the Treaty of Frankfurt caused an attack of nationalism to sweep the German states and under the popular Prussian leader they became one nation, now the balance of power in Europe started to tilt, as now a new potentially huge economic and military power existed in Europe that already proved to have aggressive policies.

In order to capture the new German public’s heart, the Kaiser must create the wants and needs of the people in order to secure power. Could the new idea of nationalism be point blame of the long-standing rivalries between nations? Public opinion of the time was for a nation to be better than another, to expand its territory and influence, which would define nationalism; are all ingredients for bitter tensions to develop. An example of war attitude was the street celebrations that accompanied the European nation’s declaration of war, this gave the impression that the move was popular and politicians tend to agree with the public’s popular mood to gain support. Some historians seem to suggest this invisible enemy could be the sole reason for war itself, yes it would take crises and rivalries to start a war but regarding to the Internet modern history sourcebook, ‘Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century’. Nationalism that swept through the ranks during the Franco-Prussian could be portrayed from the songs that were sung by soldiers,

Join now!

‘They stand, a hundred thousand strong,
Quick to avenge their country's wrong;
With filial love their bosoms swell,
They'll guard the sacred landmark well!
Chorus: Dear Fatherland, no danger thine;
Firm stand thy sons to watch the Rhine!’

The poem clearly suggesting aggressive words and phrases with a nation not yet united in Germany or the ‘Fatherland’ but they still feel a strong German brother-hood.

Now that all classes of society were under one law and rule, this caused a rapid economic growth within the state that was to lead to an industrial race of might. Industrialization progressed dynamically in Germany ...

This is a preview of the whole essay