This plan can be completely defensive, because it could’ve been used if any possible threat from the triple entente emerged. Having said this, we can also say that this plan was not defensive at all, we can say that Germany had been planning to use this strategy ever since, and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand happened to be the perfect pretext to put it into action. These explanations coincide with A.J.P Taylors or Fritz Fischer’s hypothesis, because both historians believed that Germany sought an aggressive war, especially Fischer. Seeing the Schlieffen Plan, it is obvious that Germany was being incredibly aggressive, but at the same time defensive.
However there is an argument, which goes against Germany planning and waging a World War. The thesis is by Andreas Hillgruber; his argument was that in 1914 a “calculated” risk taken by Germany had gone off beam. He argued that the imperial German government had attempted to break the triple entente. They assumed/hoped that both Britain and France wouldn’t get drawn in with the crisis in the Balkans, merely because it didn’t concern them, and that lack of Anglo-French support would lead to improved understanding with Russia. Hillgrubed argued that when Austria’s attack on Serbia triggered the mobilization of the massive Russian army, rather than backing down as anticipated. The German chancellor Hollweg, under great pressure from the hawkish staff lead by the young Moltke panicked and ordered the Schlieffen plan to be activated, accordingly leading to the attack on France. Hillgruber supposed that the German Government had pursued an unsafe diplomatic tactic of provoking a war in the Balkans that had unintentionally caused a European War. This thesis would go completely against Germany planning and waging a deliberate war of aggression, because they were confident that the other powers would not get involved.
Another thesis against Germany deliberately starting the European War is the ‘blank check’. Germany gave Austria the blank check encouraging Austria to go to war with Serbia, using the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand as an excuse. The Germans expected Russia to back down again like it had done in 1908, but we know that after Russia backing down to Germany in 1908, it was determined to never back down to her again. Russia also had a colossal rearmament program since 1908. This thesis says that Germany did not cause a European war deliberately because they were expecting another response from Russia. They only expected a conflict between Austria and Serbia. Having said this, there is also the argument that Germany knew all along that Russia would intervene, therefore it would be “obliged” to defend Austria-Hungary.
At the circumstances of the time Germany was looking for any solid pretext to go to war. In 1914 Germany was eager to go to war, she was well aware that the Entente powers were advancing in industry and military much faster than her. She also knew that by 1917 Russia would be completely ready to go to war; therefore she needed to use the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as an excuse. Besides, Russia’s massive re-armament program would have made the Schlieffen plan useless, because Russia would have had enough time to create the railway, which would have let the enormous Russian army mobilize in days instead of weeks. It wouldn’t have worked because the Schlieffen plan depended on Russia’s slow mobilization. This means that Germany did start the European war deliberately, because it needed to go to war one way or the other. In a few words, Germany wanted to go to war to avoid a later confrontation on two fronts.
A thesis by A.J.P Taylor says that the war was completely Germanys fault. He says “[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War”. I agree with Taylors thesis because Germany was an incredibly ambitious country and had a likewise leader. Kaiser Wilhelm wanted Germany to be seen as a super power; it wanted Germany to have respect, influence and vast rule. He wanted Germany to have its own empire, he was eager to make Germany superior to the other powers. This incredible aspiration to be the most powerful comes from the competitiveness of capitalism.
We can see how Germany was seeking power in 1906, due to the Kaisers announcements of Germany building up its arms. Britain was incredibly concerned about the Kaisers announcement, because there was no good reason for Germany to build up. Germany didn’t have a gigantic overseas empire like Britain; it didn’t even have a large coastline. However, Germanys pretext was that it was only building up its arms in order to protect its growing trade. Britain didn’t believe Germany, thus began rearming. The arms race began with the launching of the HMS Dreadnought in 1906. This arms race shows us how militarism and competitiveness can raise the tension significantly between two powers.
Historians like Hobsbawm believed that no specific country was to blame. He blames
the capitalist countries; he says that the European war was completely inevitable because
the opposition was capitalist, thus fighting for resources. Hobsbawms argument is very strong because by nature industrialist countries are exceedingly competitive. Due to this competitiveness, tension rises because they are even willing to fight for land. An example of capitalism could be the scramble for Africa, the major powers were taking over parts of Africa due to the resources, a clear example of this is in Morocco 1905, the French wanted to take over Morocco because they knew that it was weak and besides, they wanted Morocco in their sphere of influence. However, Kaiser Wilhelm intervened and made a speech in Morocco making it clear that Germany entirely supported Morocco’s independence.
The actual motive for Germany to intervene was not only because it wanted to reduce Frances sphere of influence, but its main reason was to get a diplomatic victory over France. Hobsbawn has a very good point of view, in my opinion countries that are capitalist are competitive. When a country is competitive, no matter in what area, whether it is industrially or in its navy, a great deal of resources is required in order to keep its industry advancing. In order to get these resources they will look for easy/weak countries to take over, many of which were in Africa. I agree with Hobsbawns thesis because after industrialism comes imperialism.
To conclude, I believe that Germany did not plan a European war, but it was definitely the main contributor, due to many mistakes made by the leaders. However, I do believe that if all the countries wouldn’t have wanted to go to war, then there would have been no war, because they would have all united against Germany thus Germany would have dared attack. Many different events added tension to the situation, like the alliances, Moroccan Crisis, naval arms race, Balkan wars etc.
By bearing in mind so many opinions by historians, to accuse Germany of deliberately causing World War One is extremely hard because there are so many sides one can take; it is almost as if none of them is right or wrong. We will never know the real cause of World War One. However, due to many strong evidences I must say that Germany did wage a deliberate war of aggression, BUT she did not plan the war.
Industrialism played a major role, because it is what made the powers ambitious to seek resources, which in turn converted into imperialism and from imperialism to militarism and from militarism to World War One.
