• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How valid is the claim that in 1914 states went to war due to fear rather than for motives of gain? Surprisingly, despite nearly a century of exhaustive research, carried out by historians, the question of the first World War causes remains a perplexing mixture of consensus, ignorance and contestation. Even the notion that could have specific short term causes, or long term actions which brought it about, is a matter of dispute. David Lloyd George, whose memoirs asserted that 'the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war' - influenced historians to think that protagonists in the run-up to war concealed or failed to understand their own motives. The historian A.J.P Taylor made an extremely important contribution to the understanding of events in 1914 when he argued that the conflict arose from feelings of weakness rather than feelings of strength. He asserted that 'the sole cause for the outbreak of war in 1914 was the Schlieffen plan'. This is supported by Luigi Albertini, his view was that the German support for Austria in early July 1914 constituted a very risky gamble, and that German mobilisation was equivalent to war, because of the Schlieffen Plan. Though he acknowledged the fact that Russian policy escalated the crisis, that the Serbsa had no intention of compromising withAustria, and that Grey could have warned the Germans earlier of likely British intervention, he ...read more.

Middle

Both were less of a threat to 'democracy' than to British trading interests. The French equivalent was to demand the return of Alsace and Lorraine. It was only indirectly, and over the next course of the year, that the dismantling of the Habsburg Empire and the establishment in its place of independent nation states, also became an article of faith for allies. Russia had little to gain by defeating Germany, expect for more troublesome Polish subjects, and its official war aims soon came to concentrate upon the old attractions of the Dardanelles and Constantinople. In Mar-Apr 1915, Britain and France finally agreed that Russia should had these in the event of victory, as long as they were compensated by gains in Egypt and the Near East. In the event of an Entente Victory, therefore the Ottoman Empire, too, was doomed to disintegration The claim that in 1914 States went to war due to motives of gain. Although the victors in 1918 were quick to formulate questions of 'war guilt', the outbreak of the conflict makes more sense if it is seen as a combination of miscalculations. The government of Austria - Hungary erred in believing that a clash with Serbia could be settled without wider complications. Russia's partial mobilisation on 30 July was undertaken without sufficient awareness of its effect upon German policy. ...read more.

Conclusion

The greatest uncertainties surrounded Italy, formally linked by the Triple Alliance to Germany and to Austria-Hungary, yet set against the latter by all the precedents of 19ths century history. Only the Entente could offer Italythe Habsburg territories in the Tyrol and down the Adriatic cost that its nationalists demanded to complete the process of unification. Thus Italy finally sided withFrance, Britain and Russia. "Fifty years were spent in the process of making Europe explosive. Five days were enough to denote it'. June 28th 1914, the final crisis was triggered by the assignation in the Bosnian town of Sarajevo of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of the Austrian Emperor. His murderer was a member of a Serbian terrorist organisation known as the 'Black Hand'. Is another example of gain, as their motives behind the assassination were annexing Bosnia. In conclusion, through assessing why states went to war in 1914, we analysed both sides of the arguments. States went to war due to the fear; like the Triple Entente who simply went to war for their own survival as major powers.The proclivity of much of the general historiography on the war in Europe has been to emphasise the constraining effects of circumstance on individual actors and to alleviate individuals' responsibility for causing a world war. Many leaders are held to have acted 'defensively' due to fear, feeling that their nation, in the words of study written by H.H Herwig (The Origins of War) was 'in decline' or, at least 'seriously threatened'. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. Notes on German unification - main events

    February 28, 1866 --> a meeting of the Prussian Crown Council - Grenville: "there was a virtual decision for war with Austria" - April 8, 1866 --> a secret alliance with Prussia and Italy took place - The meeting agreed on the following; if Prussia went to war with Austria

  2. Notes on Italian unification - background and main events

    important in getting troops across - Despite all the problems they faced, the French got on top - Battle of Magenta was between the French and Austrian; there was terrible bloodshed --> France was victorious - 24th June; Battle of Solferino --> equal amount of bloodshed --> France was also

  1. The Fear of Communism and its Effects on Australia in the 1950s and 60s. ...

    The threat received a strong reaction from the Liberal Party of Australia. The Labor and later under Menzies power the Liberal Party decided to seek assistant from other nations. Alliances were formed and rise of communism only helped strengthen Australia's alliance with the US.

  2. Italian Unification Revision Notes. Italian Politics in 1815

    In the nick of time, Austria came to Piedmont's rescue. Emperor Francis Joseph, determined to humiliate Piedmont and to demonstrate that she had given way to Austria and not to the other foreign powers. Issued an ultimatum, which was rejected.

  1. Causes of WW1. How valid is the claim that in 1914, states went ...

    Austria-Hungary invaded and took over the former Turkish province of Bosnia. This caused tension in Serbia as they felt Bosnia should belong to them. Austria-Hungary viewed Serbia as a threat. This was largely due to Serbia's desire to unite the Slavic people, including those living in the southern parts of the empire.

  2. Nazi Germany

    German territory into eastern Europe � He fulfilled it, but also started the WW2! - war began in September 1939 - food, clothes rationing - 1941 - Hitler risked and invaded the Soviet Union and for next 3 years his troops were in very a war with Russian forces -

  1. IB History HL, Extended Notes: Russia, the Tsars, the Provisional Govenment and the Revolution.

    When you compare the aims they hoped to achieve the opposition can be seen as ineffective. Killed Alexander II but achieved little with regards to reducing autocratic power or gaining peasant support for an anti-state uprising. 3. Significant because they ?laid the groundwork? for future revolutions and raised central

  2. Notes on the History and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

    Nasser began to be viewed in the West, particularly Britain, in a negative light: o Nasser's move towards Communists, including an arms deal with the Czechs o Nasser's refusal to join the Bagdad Pact = the British PM, Eden saw Nasser as another Hitler and was determined to remove him

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work