I think that, as has been reflected in the media coverage of war in Iraq, people’s ideas of the causes and justification of war are largely influenced by the popular press. As is the same now, different newspapers had different opinions on the war. The most prominent papers, such as The Daily Mail, promoted the idea of “the evil hun”, skewering babies on bayonets and suchlike, and the idea was generally accepted by the British public. I think it is the press’s influence which is largely responsible for the public perception of war, but with the extremely useful tool known as hindsight, we can see the whole picture.
Marxist historians state Imperial rivalry and capitalism as the underlying causes of war. I agree with the idea that Imperialism significantly contributed to the war. The fact that there was a fairly hefty rivalry between nations is clear from their aggressive actions overseas, with the major powers such as Britain and Germany scrabbling to obtain and retain significant areas around the globe. The Marxist theory, however, goes on to say that the acquisition of new territory led capitalists to look for new markets abroad, which in turn encouraged governments to obtain more and more land, adding to the tensions between states. They claim that this ultimately led to war. I disagree with this theory, one, because the hostilities in Africa and Asia never truly threatened international war, and two, because I think that business heads at the time were keen to encourage amiable relations between states, with trading between nations truly coming into is own at this time. Fritz Fischer, a prominent German historian, claimed that all of the nation’s international diplomacy was ruled by domestic policy. I disagree with this statement. If we look at the political circumstances of the nations at the time, I think it is clear that the general public were not adequately empowered to influence diplomacy. For example, Germany, who had more voters than any other country, parliament had no actual power over the government. This meant that although public opinion was probably taken into consideration, it is unlikely that her actions were actually dictated by the masses.
It is my opinion that the First World War was not caused by a single event. It may be fair to say that Ferdinand’s assassination sparked the war, but I find it incredulous to think that this one spark was the actual cause of a world war. I think that the reasons for war are numerous and interlinked; a patchwork quilt if you will of diplomacy and economy. The treaties and agreements at the time – the Franco-Russian alliance of 1892 (although it was not made public until 1918), the triple entente, the German-Habsburg alliance of 1879, and the various trade treaties at the time all set the stage for war. So was war inevitable?
I believe so, although I think that the circumstances of war could have been very different. I think that the rise of Germany itself thanks to Bismarck, and the amazing acceleration of production there, was bound to lead to competition with another state. The theory of Social Darwinism; that if you are not growing you are dying (originally invented by English philosopher Herbert Spencer), could be argued to be illustrated by the actions of Germany and Britain during the naval arms race. Their expansion, both militarily and territorially, I think is fair to say was only down to competition with each other; Britain had been a clear leader in Europe, and had no real need to expand other than to prevent a rival close to home. There is an idea that if Britain had made its stance clear during the July crisis in 1914 (we must remember that the triple entente was only an informal agreement, rather than a binding alliance), then Germany would not have gone to war with France. I think that this is plausible, as Germany would certainly have been reluctant to fight such a close rival, but I retain the belief that war would have taken place, if not that month, perhaps not in 1914, but at some point in the near future.
So how close was Baldrick to the truth? It could be argued that he is right in saying the war started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, but I think it would be wrong to say it started because of his death. The tangled web of alliances in Europe at the time ensured that if one country went down, they all went down. Because of this I believe that if Princip had not shot Ferdinand and his wife, there would have been another incident to act as a catalyst to war.
Ben Taylor
