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

"The first world war was the result of long-standing rivalries between the great powers". How valid is this view.

Extracts from this document...


"The first world war was the result of long-standing rivalries between the great powers". How valid is this view. This aim of this investigation is to explore the nature of long-standing rivalries during the period leading up to WW1. It will also examine how these long-standing rivalries came about. But most importantly this investigation will scrutinize how significant these long-standing rivalries were in bringing about the war, and whether or not they were the primary cause. I disagree with the statement in the question. The evidence shows that long-standing rivalries certainly played an important role in bringing about some of the tensions present in Europe, as well as exacerbating problems that may not have otherwise been aggravated. However it can be argued that pre-1914 alliances were so precarious and fragile that they cannot be seen as the major cause of the war. A long-standing rivalry between great powers is a rivalry that predated the war by at least a decade, although time constraints will be assessed in the context of individual aspects that are analysed when drawing a judgement as to the extent of a long-standing rivalry. In my opinion, the nature of the rivalry and the severity of its effects on the nations involved is the most important factor when evaluating to what extent an enmity was in-fact a long-standing rivalry. There were several long-standing rivalries present in the run up to WW1. The most blatant was the rivalry between France and Germany. This rivalry was born out of France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. The long-standing rivalry between Britain and Germany, concerning economic imperialism also played a role in bringing about war. The long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia too played a role. ...read more.


For example, Germany provoked the first Moroccan crisis in an attempt to test the alliance between France and Britain. The suspicions that were created motivated each country, but Germany in particular, to further arm themselves. This led to a vicious cycle of increased armament and more secretive alliances, putting in place an atmosphere (as well as the weapons) necessary for war. Weltpolitik did not help put any country's mind at rest. However, there are limitations to the extent the alliance system could have realistically brought about war. It was far from certain that Germany would back Austria-Hungary unconditionally in a Balkan war. The attitude of Italy within the triple alliance was extremely ambiguous (proven when Italy abandoned their position in the triple alliance). The triple entende was a loose arrangement, especially where Britain was involved as Britain's treaty was non binding (proven during the first Moroccan crisis when Britain did not promise support to France). The Franco-British entende contained no element of military commitment whatsoever. On top of all this, colonial disputes in Persia had soured Britain's relationship with Russia. Even though alliances had caused tensions and suspicions to run high in Europe, creating an uneasy atmosphere that at first sight appears to be perfectly favourable to war, many more errors and miscalculations were needed to lead the continent into war. In conclusion, although the alliance system did play a role in bringing about war, the system was at the same time very limited in its capabilities to do so. This suggests the structure of the system accommodated war as opposed to the view that the alliances themselves were responsible for war. Militarism in the run up to the war, that is the arms race, is often labelled as a long-term rivalry between the powers in Europe, vying for the greatest military force to satisfy their imperialistic aims and their nationalistic sentiments. ...read more.


Imperialistic ambitions may well have also played a part. Austria-Hungary's short term aims resulted in a world war, which may have been avoided were Austria-Hungary not so unreasonable towards Serbia. In conclusion, there are a myriad of causes that could have brought war about. The alliance system, the naval race and the arms race, to some extent, were all sprouted from aggressive German foreign policy. Long-standing rivalries did play a role in bringing about war. The rivalries exacerbated tensions between the European powers, created suspicions, but were not the most significant factors in bringing war about. World war one war was not the result of long-standing rivalries, though they do play a part. What has proved to be more important are factors including German aggression, Weltpolitik and the crisis in the Balkans. None of these factors are the product of long-standing rivalries, or indeed are long-standing rivalries. What has come across is that the reason long-standing rivalries were not the main factor in bringing about war was because, firstly, the short term factors were more significant. Secondly, long-standing rivalries only created the atmosphere conducive to war. The rivalries themselves would not bring about war without a trigger. The trigger in this case was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Long-standing rivalries ensured the resources and sentiments were in place for a war to begin. However, long-standing rivalries were not enough in themselves to bring about war. The foundations of some rivalries relied heavily on the fact that Germany was so aggressive. In conclusion, long-standing rivalries did play a part in bringing war about, but that part was only to ensure that when war did break out, it would be a large one. German aggression was the root of some of the rivalries and the main underlying reason why war came about. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 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 AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the ...

    4 star(s)

    Bolsheviks, the unpopularity of the Provisional Government, Tsar Nicholas II's rule and abdication, Lenin's strong leadership, the effects of World War One and mutiny in the army. Although all of these factors were important, I think that the effects of World War One were more significant than the others.

  2. Assess the view that the failures of the Congress of Vienna outweighed the successes.

    Alexander was determined to take control of Poland, which his army already occupied, boasting 'Poland is mine. There can be little negotiation with 600, 000 men.'47 Likewise, Hardenberg announced in December 1814 that if his country were not given Saxony, he would see it as an act of war.

  1. Vietnam war

    * Increasing centralisation, administrators replacing democratically elected village councils, purging of suspected communist/ Viet Cong activity. * Strategic Hamlet program= American support= Varyingly effective= greater discontent= 1960 suspension, but then new strategic hamlet program of relocation protected by ARVN= 3000 fortified villages by end of year.

  2. Hitlers Germany

    Berlin can now be regarded only as a geographical location heaped with mountainous mounds of debris." The Russian Pravda correspondent told of the terrified and starving housewives of Berlin plundering the shops, and described Berlin as a city of desolation and shattered dreams, inhabited by a half mad, half starving

  1. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    the surprising German military victories and the stunning Allied defeats that suddenly put his armies in positions of power and of control that no one could have predicted beforehand. Much of the evidence available during latter 1940?s and early 1950?s, for example Hitler?s own books and speeches containing frequent and

  2. 'The First World War arose primarily as a result of German aggression.' How far ...

    In fact, the implications of Germany being surrounded geographically by the Entente Powers imply that Germany would be unable to avoid a conflict with such Powers; making this strict Triple Entente alliance mainly responsible for the descent into war.

  1. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    However, regardless of this, the event is certainly of some overall significance. This sources however brings fourth another important question about the extent to which the Nazi's supported were supported in their murderous actions. Also at what point can we accurately say that a policy for mass-annihilation was drafted up

  2. To what extent was the system of alliances and ententes responsible for Britain entering ...

    Yet, there were other important reasons for British entry into WWI. Even when Austria declared war on Serbia and France and Russia and Germany supported their respective allies, it was not certain that Britain would join in. So, we cannot say that the alliance system was the main reason why Britain joined the war.

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