Source one is a speech given by Prince von Bulow, the Chancellor of Germany, in December 1899. In the speech, von Bulow has stated his intentions for Germany to strengthen its army and expand its boundaries. Although there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour on Germany’s part, this source does illustrate an aggressive tendency, which existed 15 years before the First World War broke out. Unlike the previous sources, these intentions would have influenced the nature of Weltpolitik, as von Bulow was in a position to dictate the route that Germany would take. The German parliament was the reason behind his persuasive reasoning;
‘There is a great deal of envy of us in the world’. However, it had had little power. Von Bulow’s proposals would have been employed.
Germany’s dilemma to help Austria – Hungary, after the attack on Serbia, and the fear of encirclement is expressed by Kaiser Wilhelm II in a secret memorandum, concerning July 1914 in source four. Once again, there is no evidence of an aggressive move by Germany in this source. However, her reasons for entering the war, according to Wilhelm II have been given here.
‘England…has been seeking to annihilate us’. This source does not support the idea of an aggressive German foreign policy. In actual fact, it suggests that the nature of Weltpolitik war based on the idea of fear and defence. Wilhelm II political and military position would have influenced the nature of Germany’s foreign policy. The fact that this was a secret memorandum, states that the Kaiser himself, believed that Germany had no choice but to go to war.
To conclude, not one of the sources fully supports the idea of an aggressive German foreign policy. This idea is far too conclusive and premature. Source one is a well founded origin of an aggressive foreign policy. Sources two and three show an interpretation of a clumsy and awkward policy. Where as source five suggests that Weltpolitik was formulated on the basis of fear and encirclement. The nature of Weltpolitik puzzles historians; perhaps it was a combination of all those mentioned.
Part B
“The First World War was the result of a badly mismanaged Balkan Crisis in the summer of 1914 rather than the product of long standing rivalries between the great powers”.
Assess the truth of this opinion on the causes of the outbreak of World War One.
The conclusive nature of the opinion in question, undermines the part accuracy of it. The First World War was the result of a badly mismanaged Balkan Crisis in the summer of 1914. However, the long standing rivalries between the great powers, as well as other factors, also contributed to the outbreak of war in 1914.
The Treaty of Versailles held Germany responsible for the outbreak of war. Its verdict was considered by many to be harsh and unjustified; article 231, which stated Germany’s accountability, was labelled by critics as the ‘war guilt’ clause. However, there were those, as there still are today, historians who believe that Germany’s behaviour prior to 1914 was the sole cause of the First World War. In the 1960s, Fritz Fischer resurrected the theory that Germany was to blame for WWI (World War I). By this point in time, historians had accepted other theories as WWI causes; with the majority rejecting the notion of German ‘war guilt’, saying that it was an unfair and highly controversial assumption. However, Fischer’s argument was a well founded one. He discovered the September Memorandum, a statement of war aims written by the Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, dated 9th September 1914. It called for a German dominated Mitteleuropa (Middle Europe) and also stated ambitions for colonial acquisitions in Africa. Fischer suspected that these plans formulated during the July Crisis itself. He suggested that Germany deliberately went to war in 1914 in order to achieve these aims. When investigating the causes of the First World War, one must take into consideration Fischer’s views, as he was able to present substantial evidence to support his claim. For example, a document was recovered from a top level meeting at the Royal Palace, Berlin. At this meeting, Admiral von Tirpitz told the Kaiser that the navy would be ready for another 18 months. The meeting took place in September 1912. 18 months later, World War I began in the summer of 1914. Fischer thought this to be much more than a coincidence. To quote John Lowe and Robert Pearce, Fritz Fischer’s theories ‘reopened an issue which had fallen into a stale consensus’. Historians no longer look exclusively at German responsibility. Nevertheless, Fischer’s thesis was based on solid evidence, so we cannot overlook it. Germany’s Weltpolitik and war planning played a major part, in bringing about the Great War.
Another possible cause of the First World War was Austria – Hungary’s union with Germany and dispute with Serbia. The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand forced Austria – Hungary to think long and hard about retaliating against Serbia. Revenge for the assassination would result in a war with Serbia’s greatest ally, Russia. Despite this, Austria – Hungary responded and declared war on Serbia; triggering the start of World War I. The popular explanation suggests that without Germany’s support in the form Kaiser Wilhelm’s blank cheque, Austria - Hungary would not have challenged Serbia, and consequently, Russia. Although well wounded, this explanation can be challenged. The balance of power developed during the years leading up to 1914. Prior to World War I, the European powers sought to maintain a fair equilibrium of power between one another. If a nation attempted to rise above this balance, it brought about tension. This did not happen in the case of Austria – Hungary. Austria – Hungary’s foreign minister said in response to the assassination;
‘(Inaction meant) the renunciation of our Great Power position’. Austria – Hungary had once been a great Empire. To reinstate her power, she attacked Serbia, which ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war in 1914.
The first Balkan War, 1908, proved to be a ‘dress rehearsal’ for the First World War. Without consent, Austria – Hungary had annexed Bosnia Herzegovina, a nation heavily populated by Slavs. The Slavic race also made up much of Russia’s population, so Austria’s actions worsened tensions between the two nations. The first Balkan War was a badly mismanaged affair. Austria – Hungary was well aware of Russia’s close links with Bosnia – Herzegovina but they still persisted. European hostility was renewed as a result of 1908, with Germany supporting Austria – Hungary. It also tightened relations between Serbia and Russia. In this, we can see an origin of World War I. The first Balkan War also led to the formation of the Black Hand Gang, of whom the assassin of the Archduke, Gravillio Princip, was a member of. The Second Balkan War, which took place in July 1913, was another example of a badly mismanaged Balkan affair. As a result of this war, Turkey’s Ottoman Empire collapsed. This left the Balkan states scrambling for new territory. Serbia fought Bulgaria for Macedonia. The Serbians were victorious when Bulgaria backed down. In the Treaty of Bucharest, Serbia claimed all of Bulgaria’s land. This localised war was to have a large impact on the rest of Europe, which would escalate into a larger scale European confrontation – World War I. Serbia had become more powerful after the second Balkan War, which worried Austria – Hungary. The rise in Balkan nationalism would lead to an uprising, which in turn, would need to be crushed. Austria – Hungary moved to suppress a Slavic rising in 1914, which brought Russia into the equation. The First World War was, most certainly, a war of allies. The Balkan Wars served as ingredients to produce the ‘Third Balkan War’ in 1914.
When considering the origins of war, it is important to focus on the issues that affected several countries, rather than one in particular. The arrogance of nations led them to believe that ‘lesser’ nations were easier to beat. In a sense, much of the great powers entered the war, underestimating the strength of their rivals. War, before 1914, was seen as a glorious adventure by many nations. In the eyes of historians John Lowe and Robert Pearce, the British government had ‘propagated an unrealistic image of war’. Large amounts of British men signed up to the war effort with great enthusiasm. They had good reason; Britain had a considerable Empire and an impressive track record in previous wars. Large sections of European society welcome war in 1914. The unifying effect contributed to the outbreak of war. In Britain, for example, the suffragettes became devoted supporters of the liberal government, whom they had previously apposed. In Germany, the socialists rallied behind the authoritarian government, in order to protect the Fatherland from ‘Russian Barbarianism’. Another reason why Germany entered the war. The Kaiser feared a potential socialist uprising, so a war would serve as a distraction and prolong the authoritarian establishment. When investigating the causes of the First World War, one cannot underestimate the influence of the people of Europe. According to Adolf Hitler, war was ‘desired by the whole people’.
Military planning also played a significant role the outbreak of war. The Schlieffen plan was extremely important in 1914. The plan specified that Germany had to fight France, before Russia. If France had been reluctant to enter the war, the Schlieffen plan most certainly drew them in.
The Alliance systems of the great European powers are often seen as an overriding factor in causes of World War I. When the crisis erupted in the Balkans in 1914, they dictated who entered the war. The Duel Alliance, between Germany and Austria – Hungary, ensured that Germany would support Austria – Hungary when it declared war on Serbia. Russia’s links with Serbia gained her the support of France. Great Britain was also part of the Triple Entente agreement (France and Russia) so they stood by their allies. The alliances conjured up feelings of insecurity amongst the powers. French fears over Germany, especially after her defeat in the Franco Prussian war, led her to seek an alliance with Russia. Germany anxiety intensified during the Moroccan Crisis of 1906. In 1905, Germany landed at port Tangier, Morocco. At the Algences Conference, 1906, Kaiser Wilhelm, envious of France’s protectorate of the African nation, wanted a removal of French influence. France and Britain rejected, insisting that Germany should leave. The apparent Anglo – Franco unity made Germany feel surrounded. From Germany’s point of view, the alliances of their rivals created an intimidating sense of ‘encirclement’. The Alliance systems did not trigger the actual outbreak of war. However, they are crucial to our understanding of WWI causes, as they escalated European tensions which preceded 1914.
Another sign of international tension were the arms race and military mobilisation of the European powers. An example of an intense and long standing rivalry, the Anglo – German naval race established a bitter relationship between the two nations. After 1912, all of the European powers were mobilising. Perhaps out of fear of war; perhaps to stay in touch with their rivals. Great Britain, Germany, Austria – Hungary, France and Russia had all increased their expenditure on armaments in the years 1910 – 1914. However, it did not make war inevitable. The race to mobilise may have aroused fear and suspicion, although, it may have acted as a deterrent from war. After all, the respect for of power amongst the European nations was an attempt to prevent an outbreak of war. Certainly, years of relative peace followed.
Imperialism, capitalism and nationalism in the years leading up to 1914, can also be considered as causes of the First World War. Vladimir Lenin, stated that the war being fought amongst the great powers was simply an ‘imperialistic war’. His theories are well founded. Great Britain had the most impressive colonial empire during the early 1900s. Germany decided to challenge it by taking part in the ‘scramble’ for Africa. If anything, colonies were a great show of a nation’s strength. The intense Franco – German clashes during the Moroccan crisis are another example that shows how important imperialism was to the great powers; enough to drive them to war. In the shape of imperialism, long standing rivalries did bring about war. The strive for it caused friction and jealousy, sparking off the need for relief and revenge, which came in the form of the First World War. Nationalism, like Imperialism, suggests that the great powers wanted war to show off their might. Germany was united by nationalism. Inspired by Social Darwinism, many factions within Germany encouraged a Germany which included all Germans. This made it easier for the Kaiser to rally support and enter the war. The failure of the larger European powers to combat Balkan nationalism is another factor. Therefore, the role of nationalism as a cause cannot be ignored. Marxist historians hold the view that capitalism, as well as international rivalry, was an underlying cause of the First World War.
To conclude, the many factors mentioned challenge the view that the First World War was the result of a badly mismanaged Balkan crisis in the summer of 1914, rather than long standing rivalries. Due to the immediate impact of the assassination, it is understandable to see why this view is taken. The Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo on 28th June 1914. This one incident proved to be catalyst for war. If the affair had been managed better, it probably would have only prolonged the outbreak of war. The underlying factors, such as imperialism, the balance of power, and the others which have been discussed, served as a build up to the First World War.