This along with the ‘Blank Check’ which was given by Germany to Austria to do what they felt necessary in the Balkans (Serbia), after the assassination of Duke Ferdinand, are where many historians such as Fritz Fischer draw their criticisms of Germany, and argue her to be the main cause of WWI. By researching government documents, many never before seen by normal citizens, Fisher drew that the Kaiser’s government cold bloodedly planned the outbreak of WWI from 1912 onwards. “Fischer believes that the First World War was no preventative war, born out of fear and desperation; it was planned and launched by Germany with the aggressive aim of dominating Europe.” However Ritter, rebuts Fisher in stating that there is no evidence to prove that Germany planned for world domination. He goes on to explain that Germany acted defensively throughout the July Crisis in order to maintain a place in the status quo. Fisher alleged that domestic factors were the chief moving force behind German foreign policy, which was looked upon by the Kaiser and his government as a key tool in diverting attention away from domestic discontentment. Ritter however concludes that Germany only wished to support Austria Hungry, her only firm ally, and the government realized only too late that the conflict could not remain localized. Ritter goes on to explain that the German government relied too much on military planners and in doing so devised plans, which made it almost impossible to escape the escalation of issues resulting in war.
If we are to weight to what extent Germany is responsible for causing World War I, one must also weigh other long and short-term causes of the war, such as nationalism in the Balkans, militarism, the alliance system, and imperialism. Nationalism in the Balkans played a major role in sparking the final decision to go to war. The suppression of the Balkan States by the Ottoman Empire for many years had finally reached its end, as the empire found it virtually impossible to control such an explosive region. The Balkan states demanded their independence however Austria refused to watch this happen, as she too was a crumbling empire, built up of nations demanding their freedom. Austria was thus in opposition of Balkan nationalism and in favor of oppressing the nationalist movements within the Balkan states, as to not let it spread within her own boarders, whereas Russia, who desired access to the Again Strait supported the Balkan nationalist movements. The Balkan wars placed Germany in an awkward position, terminating her alliance with Russia, as she chose Austria-Hungary’s side. Serbia which eventually gained her independence from the Ottoman Empire was a boiling pot for nationalist groups. After the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria Hungary, while visiting Serbia, a chain reaction of events resulted, after an impossible list of demands were sent to Serbia, which, in historian John Remak’s view brought about the war. He considers World War I to be the 3rd and final Balkan War and blames Serbia and Austria-Hungary for selfishly brining all the major European powers into a squabble for supremacy in the Balkans between the two of them. Leslie factors in however that Austria-Hungary used the assassination ad a means to settle accounts with Serbia, brining in Germany in a plea for prevention of Russian intervention. Nonetheless, he places more fault on Germany who he thinks saw the war with Serbia as secondary to the struggle with Russia, backing it with the claim that in the July Crisis the Kaiser virtually commanded Austria-Hungary to set aside its anger against Serbia and to deploy the major portion of its troops against Russia.
Militarism provoked fear between the European Powers and although not at war yet, they were certainly building up their armies and artillery in preparation. Reforms such as the Navel Act in Britain which stated that her navy had to be more powerful than the two navies underneath hers, put together are strong examples of this. Germany had a strong, sophisticated army, and along with their confrontational foreign policy, challenged the British navel act, igniting tension between them. France began to rearm, after her embarrassing defeat by Germany, as a precautionary measure against a future attack and to gain back her lost national pride. Russia on the other hand had a huge, highly unskilled army, which as was shown in the case of the Balkans was unable to stop preparing for battle once it began. As each country was trying to outdo the other, an arms race built up, resulting in mutual unrest, mistrust and suspicion between European’s Great Powers. Michael Howard agrees with this, affirming that each announcement of increased armaments’ expenditure by one of the European powers before 1914 was viewed as a threat by its perceived rival. A.J.P Taylor adds to this argument with his certainty that the outbreak of WWI was caused ‘almost entirely’ by rival plans for mobilization by the European Powers. Statistics however were brought out which rebut these trains of thought. The thought that the high expenditure on arms lead to the war still remains unproved as proportion of the gross domestic product spent by most by major European powers on arms was in actuality quite small, when compared to amounts spent on education and services.
The Alliance System split Europe into two different camps the Triple Entente consisting of France, Britain and Russia and the Triple Alliance consisting of Germany, Austria Hungary and Italy. This made it even easier for one European power to tread into war, while igniting all the European alliances thus involving other nations. It was suppose to act a deterrent to prevent a war from beginning but instead it provoked a long and treacherous one. The alliance system once again proved to be another factor, which aggravated mutual fear and skepticism among the two alliances. Bernadotte Schmitt agrees with this in his view, ‘the alliances which had originally served the cause of peace, when put to the final test, almost mechanically operated to convert a local quarrel into a general war.’ A.J.P. Taylor interprets the pre-1914 alliances as being too precarious and fragile to of been a major cause of the war. This links to the notion that the lack of their being an international body (a proper balance of power) to prevent/ avoid war is what caused the breakout of WWI.
Imperialism among all the European nations created an atmosphere of heightened nationalism, know as jingoism. Jingoism is the glorification of armed force, and the denial of national self-determination to small powers (such as the Balkans). Each power competed for their individual needs and desires, creating as A.J.P. Taylor labels it an “export of tensions” out of Europe but into Africa, Asia, and other colonies. In Konine Zillias’s view, a Marxist historian, no European nation went to war in 191 because of treaty obligations, moral issues, or the rights of small nations, but to defend imperialist’s interests which consisted of the private interests of finance of monopoly. Paul Schroeder however does not follow this argument and instead points out that the structure of international power politics was the key dererminate in the origins of WWI, not the economic factors.
As reviewed, each power shared in the liability of causing World War I. No one power was more to blame than the other, as a chain reaction of events, which began long before the July Crisis seemed to show the true origins of WWI. Germany was no more to blame than the other great European powers and other aspects such as militarism and nationalism, which evidently played a key role in creating an atmosphere of paranoia as to who was going to make the first strike. David Lloyd George describes it best his memories in suggesting that “all the nations of Europe slithered over the edge of the boiling cauldron of war in 1914.”