What caused World War 1?

by akabambe (student)

When World War 1 is examined, the main culprit is almost always said to be Germany, however is this the case? At the end of the war, Germany was forced to take the blame without a fair trial or face annihilation. Now with all the evidence that has come to light since then, is it really fair to continue to blame this nation for the bloodiest conflict in the 20th century ? It can be evidently seen that tension was building up in the four years prior to the war and only a spark was needed to set off the ticking time bomb. Though Germany played a large part in the agitation and commencement of the Great War, one cannot blame a single country or a single cause. Europe in the 19th century was itching for war, from the socialist French to the politically suppressed Slavs. As stated by A J P Taylor “the people of Europe leapt willingly into war.” Through nationalism and a complicated network of alliances, when Austria-Hungary sneezed, the whole world caught the warfare bug. The war lasted for four long years which appeared even longer due to the fact that everyone assumed the war would be over by the Christmas of 1914. In this essay I will attempt to explain all the possible causes of the War, highlighting key events that accelerated the inevitable conflict.

An alliance in theory should have a positive outcome; however in the case of early 20th century Europe, alliances became a life and death matter. The Alliance System of the 1900s was a labyrinth of countries that adjoined with each other for the sake of defence. In 1871 after the establishment of Germany as a nation under the Prussian Monarchy, a threat was imposed that risked hazard to the delicate balance of power in Europe. The new German Empire consisted of the previously separate 30+ states consequently bringing together the industrial, economic and military power of each individual region forming a giant superpower. Under the leadership of Otto van Bismarck Germany was a relatively peaceful nation, however once control was handed over to Kaiser Wilhelm III the nation became aggressive, seeking to further its imperial desires at any cost. Thus reacting to the threat, countries made allies with those who had common goals and valuable national assets e.g. naval power, warm water ports and colonies etc. Spanning the years from 1871 to 1945 the main problem for European statesmen was how to prevent the implementation of Germany’s plan for world domination known as “weltpolitik”. Many historiographers use “weltpolitik” and later on the execution of the Schlieffen plan to place the blame on Germany for the First World War. With the purpose of protecting this developing country Bismarck made the necessary alliances, however the result of these coalitions was the complete opposite to their intentions. Countries that were not in an alliance felt singled out and defenceless and so they went on to form their own which usually rivalled those already established. The factors that influenced Bismarck’s choice of allies were the isolation of France to prevent a war to recover Alsace-Lorraine and the prevention of an alliance between France and Russia thus averting a war on two fronts. At the forefront of Bismarck’s policy was the desire to see Germany as ONE of the five great European powers allied with at least three other great European powers. Note that Bismarck’s plan showed no aspiration for German world domination which is why I strongly disagree with the view of Norman Stone who believes that Germany was determined to start a war. The rise to power of the German Empire greatly troubled Britain which had been the first country to go through an industrial revolution and was the greatest economic power of that time. It had a large overseas empire and the world’s greatest navy and army whose main objective was to police the empire; however the British navy was readily becoming obsolete. Though it might have benefited Britain greatly to ally with Germany it preferred to remain by itself in what it called “splendid isolation.” I believe the British Empire was wise in its decisions to help other countries but not to ally with them, for example, although Italy was not allied to Britain it chose not to become involved in a war against the nation out of gratitude for the role Britain played in the unification of Italy. In 1979 the Dual Alliance was formed between Austria-Hungary and Germany, originally as a secret treaty. Russia was not included in the treaty as Bismarck took into consideration the possible war that could come out of Austria-Hungary’s and Russia’s conflicting desires in the Balkans. Later on Italy was added to the treaty creating the Triple Alliance in 1882, Italy was a favourable ally due it location; it was south-east of France and would delay any movement of French troops in the case of a war between France and Germany and it was also south-west of Austria-Hungary and would aid the mobilisation of troops easily if war were to occur between Austria-Hungary and Russia. Italy also hated France for stealing Tunisia from them in 1881 and so they were more than willing to ally with Germans who also had anti-France policies. However the disadvantage of having Italy as an ally was its lack of military and naval power. Being surrounded by water, Italy was vulnerable to naval attack by both European countries and their colonies based in North Africa. France which had been overpowered by Germany feared another war with the now extremely powerful empire. This made Russia an optimum ally for France as the nation’s character was the complete opposite to that of Germany. Its geographical location also posed a threat to Germany as Russia was on one side of Germany while France was situated on the opposite side. Russia who had been rejected from the Dual alliance also felt the need for protection. In 1885 German money markets were closed to Russia to minimize their movements in the Balkans, France stepped in and made a series of loans to Russia thus setting the foundation for their future coalition. These loans were followed by peace talks between Russia and France to establish and action plan if peace was ever threatened. In 1892 the generals of both the French and Russian army drew up a convention that bound each nation to help the other militarily. Even though Russia and France acted like allies, the Dual Entente was not established until 1893 because Russia was hesitant to fight a war against Germany to recover Alsace-Lorrain and France, being a liberal republic, did not agree with the Russian idea of an absolute autocracy and France did not want to enter a fight with Austria-Hungary in support of Russia’s plans for the Balkans. For the first time since its creation, Germany was beginning to feel ‘boxed in’ and surrounded by its enemies. This led to the Kaiser travelling to Morocco in 1905 to dissuade the Sultan from allowing any French influence to be present in his country. The intention of these actions was to show the French that Britain was of no use to them and could not protect them from the German Empire. However this plan backfired as the French rushed to the Britain requiring aid and military backing in the event of a war. This gave the treaty a defensive military character against Germany to the dismay of the Kaiser. It was never Britain’s intention for the treaty to involve them in any military action as this would compromise the stand for ‘splendid isolation.’ By 1914 the whole continent of Europe had been divided into two sides: The Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and The Allies (France, Russia and Britain. The alliances that held the Central Powers together was more rigid than the Ententes the joined The Allies. An entente was less explicit in what was entailed and was open to change as circumstance would have it, however with an alliance a country was bound to the promises that had been made even if it was not advantageous to them.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Militarism can be seen as an expansion of nationalism in the context that a nation which felt a sense of superiority when it compared itself to others would manifest this way of thinking through its military. Military power to an autocratic leader was comparable to a young man, in the prime of his youth sporting his recently bought Bugatti Veyron or Cadillac Eldorado as the rest of his friends look on enviously secretly plotting a way to either outdo him or destroy what he has. The reason behind this was that military strength was based on the economic and industrial capabilities of the country as it required the money and the resources to produce arms and train soldiers and naval officers. In the last years preceding the war even civilian society was gradually becoming militarily based. Conscription was popular in most European countries and the positives of army life were incorporated into a nation’s values e.g. loyalty to your country. War and military information was glorified in boy’s books and military leaders became heroes in the eyes of the nation. Quasi-military groups e.g. Boy scouts and the British Girl’s Patriotic League incorporated mild military training into their activities, the German version of these organisations was known as Jungdeutschlandbund. Baron Baden-Powell encouraged boy scouts to “Be prepared to die for your country…so that when the time comes you may charge home with confidence, not caring whether you are to be killed or not.” Peaceful groups such as the Conscientious Objectors were ridiculed for not supporting the war; their policies were countered by patriotic pressure groups, supported by national press, who felt it was their duty to prepare civil society for the war. In such an atmosphere a great fear and hatred of fifth columnists arose especially during a war or invasion scare. In the Bible in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 it says While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. The same can be said for pre-war Europe as many things were being done in that century giving the perception that a peaceful future was at the forefront of each nation’s plans. I would dare to say that peace was important to Bismarck and thus to the German nation, this want for peace can be seen in the situation where Germany was trying to make peace between two of its neighbours: Russia and Austria-Hungary who had conflicting goals in the Balkans. During this time the Concert of Europe still settled many problems particularly pertaining to colonies in Africa. Colonies were a great resource in furthering a country’s military power as manual resources and free labourers were readily available. Unlike legal matters today, those of the 20th century were settled by arbitration in which a separate and neutral party decided the fate between two countries. Along with the stated social and political peace measures there also came those relatable to military activity. With the rapid progression of military weaponry came bans on specific forms of the weapons and tactics used for example chemical warfare, namely tear and chlorine gas use, were forbidden on the battlefield. The majority of these peace measures were drawn up in the Hague Peace Conference of 18999 initiated by Czar Nicholas II of Russia, the cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm III of Germany. International agencies which were used by all European nations e.g. the railway were set up to regulate common matters. However this may have been a key mistake in the securing of peace as we will see later on in the war with the mobilization of Russian Troops through railway. The establishing of the railway service became an avenue for fast and efficient mobilization of troops, this lead to a dependence on the trains and their timetables for military movement, strategies and tactics. However as the creation and updating of train timetables was not mechanised, the train schedules usually became “fossilized”. Although all the European countries were involved in some form of peace measures they all made war plans just in case. Recent technological developments, such as the machine gun, led to a greater loss of life in warfare; this led to international agreements set up to minimize the effects of this new wave of combat. These technological developments were made possible by an increase of communications due to the setting up of the telegraph and postal system. Many nations of this time had recently gone through an industrial revolution thus increasing the capacity to produce advanced weaponry e.g. more efficient explosive, more accurate rifles , self-loading machine guns, the use of steel in artillery and the building of fortresses reinforced with concrete and steel, trenches and tunnels. Not only was war fought by the infantry but naval warfare was a prominent feature of WW1. Progression in naval arms included ships with thicker armour, naval guns made of steel and the invention of the U-boat. The launch of the Dreadnought battleship in 1906 was a way for Britain to retain its title as having the world’s largest navy. The nation also proposed peace talks to prevent the wave of rearmament becoming a naval arms race as this would surely jeopardise their safety. However the Kaiser ignored the British warnings and started to build up its own navy thus causing Anglo-German relations to deteriorate. Although the Anglo-German naval arms race did increase the tension between the two nations it is not a plausible cause for the war as Churchill had stated that by 1914 it was clear that Germany had lost the arms race and was not a great military risk to Britain. Although Germany had exceeded Britain in terms of political and economic power they still feared Britain’s military power. This was evident in the Schlieffen Plan where Germany’s main tactic of defence was to swiftly attack France thus leaving no foothold for Britain in mainland Europe. However German y was willing to risk British attack by accessing France through Belgium which was supposed to remain neutral. The Schlieffen plan was a prime example of military tactical excellence as Count Schlieffen took into consideration all the measures that would prevent their invasion of France, mainly the fortified defences surrounding the country. The strength of the plan relied on a quickly initiated attack and the slowness of the Russian army mobilization all leading to a relatively short war.

Between 1870 and 1900 most areas of the world were not claimed by any state and so there was a great rush by European nations to annex countries into their own empires. Imperialism was seen as the expansion of a country’s chauvinistic nationalism. The majority of these countries were in Africa as it is the second-largest continent in the world. The aim of the European nations was to declare colonies in areas near the coast or near the Middle-East allowing trade across the sea and trade routes to and from the Middle-East. Colonies provided economic, political and social advantages to the nations who owned them. Many adventurers and missionaries saw colonies as an opportunity to explore and spread the gospel respectively. Production costs were lower abroad and most colonies provided raw materials that were not available in the ruling country e.g. Rubber which came from rubber trees that only grew in equatorial climates. These colonies were also seen as convenient social dumping grounds where troublemakers and prisoners could be left thus allowing social peace at home. By 1900 the British Empire owned one-fifth of the continent ranging all the way from Nigeria to South Africa. The disadvantage of colonising Africa, like every other place, is that space was limited and it was not long until the colonies of one country came into contact with the colonies of another. This idea is evidenced in the First and Second Boer Wars (1880-1881) that took place between the Dutch and the British Empire over who owned the colonies in South Africa. Around this time Britain began to feel isolated without any allies however turned down the offer by Germany to join the Triple Alliance. The Russian empire had begun to expand into China and so Britain entered into the Anglo-Japanese Entente with Japan to retain some influence in Asia. As with most alliances it was agreed that each country would help to defend the other militarily in the case of war thus reducing the seclusion Britain was feeling. This level of protection could also be gained from colonies which were chosen due to their location which acted as a barrier restricting direct access to the ruling country. In the same year Britain and France created the Anglo-French Entente which reduced the likelihood of war between the two nations especially in the case of colonial territories in Africa. Imperialism expanded from the national pride of a country and was manifested in militarism and the alliances made. In 1871, France suffered a humiliating defeat to the Prussians; the army even held a brief victory parade in the capital, Paris, to further humiliate the nation. France had to regain their prestige and so they also went into Africa and colonised almost all of West and Central Africa. The countries under their colonial power ranged from Algeria which is known for its extremely fertile soil to Tanzania whose coast faces the Indian Ocean. D.K. Fieldhouse stated that “Imperialism may be seen as the extension into the periphery of the political struggle in Europe. In simple terms imperialism resulted from the power struggle between the nations of Europe. ”France then went on to form the Anglo-French Entente with Britain in 1904 which made war between the two nations less likely even in the case of overlapping of colonial territories. Example of colonial rivalries in Africa are: The Fashoda Incident (1898) and the 1st and 2nd Moroccan Crises in 1905 and 1911 respectively. As the time of the war drew closer colonies were seen as an excellent source of soldiers for the new mass armies and so the line between the race for colonies and the arms race became extremely blurred.

Nationalism made countries bellicose in order to enlarge territory and prestige, the majority if not all of the European countries of the 19th century were autocracies where the ruler’s word determined the past, present and unavoidably the future. This made going into war much easier than in a democratic government as war would require support from the majority of the nation than from just one reckless ruler. Nationalism was the dominant ideology in Europe supported by the romanticism surrounding war. No serious war had occurred in Europe for over 99 years and the pre-nineteenth century wars were often limited as their main purpose was only to gain land for the king, not complete destruction of the enemy. Every country felt that they were better than their neighbours and would be doing them a great disservice if they were not to invade and transform their neighbours thus expanding their power. After the Franco-Prussian war the Prussian military forces refused to withdraw, France had to pay 5 billion Francs in war indemnity before the Prussian army removed their forces. The sorely beaten nation was left to lick its wounds and during this time French politicians such as Clemenceau and Poincare who had been around during the war lead to the rise of anti-German political policies. France was an already socially divided country going through its third revolution to form a liberal republic meaning that many of the political policies were made for the public, influenced by the public. In this kind of atmosphere it was extremely easy for nationalistic ideologies to form the base of daily life. Pro-France philosophy was even seen in the arts “From tomorrow, France will have only one thought: to reconstitute its forces, gather its energy, feed its sacred anger, raise its generation…to become again the great France, the France of 1792, the France of the idea and the sword…regain Lorraine, recapture Alsace. (The French poet Victor Hugo, 1871). When Kaiser Wilhelm became emperor, his coronation was held at the Palace of Versailles near Paris thus further deepening the feelings of hatred the French had towards the Germans. It was not only France that caught nationalism fever but this ideology formed the very fabric of Slav society. The Austro-Hungarians, in my opinion, were the most chauvinistic power of the time. They exerted their control on weak countries in the politically unstable area of the Balkans, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country was annexed dishonestly during diplomatic talks between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian foreign ministers. The effects of the annexation were an intensifying of Serb anger against Austria-Hungary and a building of distrust in other nations against Austria-Hungary. However this can be countered by Fritz Fisher’s revealing documentary evidence showing the Bethmann-Hollweg plan for German domination of Europe in September 1914. Serbians were seen as the most nationalistic of all these groups and produced a general who would change world history forever. Serbians had been ruled by the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian Empire for over 20 years even though they had been declared independent by the treaty of San Stefano in 1878. This lead to the many acts of rebellion in the area e.g. The First and Second Balkans Crisis that caused instability in the region. The Ottoman Empire had once dominated the Balkans however its decline during the 19th century liberated the Slavs who were supported by the Russians. The Ottoman Empire was known as the ‘sick man of Europe’ due to the fact that its people and society were intellectually and economically backwards ending fatally for the Empire which lost control of the Balkans as well as the Middle East and North Africa. The real issue behind “the sick man of Europe” was not the Empire’s decline but the power vacuum it left behind to be battled over by a highly nationalistic continent of autocracies. The Turkish Empire lost their lass foothold in Greater Europe during the 1st Balkan War where they were attacked by the Christian states. The Great Power rivalry in Europe made each crisis that arose between nations push Europe further and further into the realms of general war. The most evident national influences that were seen arguing over territory in the Balkans were the Russians and the Austrians. However the British Empire also had aspirations in the area, mainly for the purpose of reducing Russian access to the Mediterranean and preventing Russian access to the overland route to India. These preventative measures were made before the two nations entered into the Triple Entente. Russia, as well as many other countries, had its own expansionist ideas for the Balkans. Russia like Germany had an absolute monarchy ruled by the Tsar, the nation is situated in the upper Northern hemisphere and so it lacked a warm water port. Russia’s desire in the Balkans was to seize control of the Straits at Constantinople which would be used for trade and naval warfare. In 1905 Russia fought in the Russo-Japanese war which ended their reign in the Orient. The Japanese won many victories in the key city of Manchuria which was the first stronghold that Russia conquered on first entering the country. Their defeat made the country much weaker and destroyed the image of power and strength that Russia once had as the largest land mass in Europe. This allowed them to enter into an alliance with Britain, known as the Anglo-Russian Entente in 1907, as they were no longer viewed as such a great threat. Although Russia was now allied with one of the Great Powers of Europe it was still in fear of facing a war with the Triple Alliance after seeing their operation in the Balkan Crisis of 1908. Following the Austria-Hungary was a multi-national state composed majorly by the Germans of Austria; consequently many of the nation’s policies would be supported by Germany as they came from Germans. This support was exhibited by Bismarck at the Berlin Conference when he leaned more towards the Austro-Hungarians than towards the Russians. However like most endorsement in the 19th century there were ulterior motives, Germany felt that Austria-Hungary would be easier to dominate than Russia as it was a partly German nation. Control of Austria-Hungary would open the Danube Basin for German economic use and control of the basin would allow a pathway to the Middle East which had been left unclaimed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The two states of Austria and Hungary were united by the Dual Monarchy of Emperor-King Franz Joseph who ruled both nations.

Many European countries of this time were socially unstable, a good example of this is Britain which had a constitutional monarchy yet had unevenly distributed wealth. This lead to great social tensions and many historians claim that Britain entered the war to take attention away from its monetarily corrupt society. The war provided some possible benefits to many European nations and so little opposition was put forward against it. Following this train of thought you could blame every single country involved in the war because each had something to gain from it. War was used by corrupt governments to expand territory and power for the ruler, a good example of this can be seen in the attempted world domination of the Ottoman Empire whose colonies ran the extent of North Africa through to the Middle East. Many world leaders felt that the Great War would be the panacea for all the social unsettlement present at the time. Not only was war pushed by the government but pro-war propaganda was evident in all right-wing press encouraging chauvinism. War brought financial benefit to a country through arms manufacturing which became a prominent source of finance for many countries. Like a plethora of present day British towns, areas the produced military and naval arms factories had high levels of employment and a growing local economy. To maintain healthy business, workers and company owners relied on the spread of ear of the enemy and an increase in anticipation of the Great War which would lead to higher levels of encouragement of arms production war planning of this time was controlled by the military generals excluding cooperation with the diplomats and so war plans became fanciful, based on the whims of the generals.

Unlike many historiographers I don’t believe it was Germany who started the war. It was a mix of many causes, of which almost all stemmed from nationalism. If we were to assign blame to individuals I would blame the awful government of these countries. Many of 19th century European nations were ruled by dictators who did not hold the opinions or the values of their subjects in high regard. To these corrupt monarchs, their country was merely an enlarged manifestation of their egos. The population was dispensable and no price was too high to further or restore the self-image of the monarch. This ideology is most clearly seen in Kaiser Wilhelm who suffered from a withered arm and slight paralysis. He was disadvantaged physically and so suffered from low self-esteem thus causing him to use his nation to prove his strength. As a child he was bullied by his teachers who thought the maltreatment would build a natural desire to succeed in the young boy however many historians blame this abuse as the basis for Kaiser Wilhelm’s unstable and aggressive character. His hostile temperament can be seen in the Kaiser’s eagerness to enter into a total war. This overcompensation could also be the reason why Kaiser Wilhelm felt Germany had to be the strongest economy and had to have the biggest military, taking his own personal issues and misconstruing them into chauvinism. The bullying he had experienced during his childhood caused him to have a political policy heavily influence by Social Darwinism. There is no one single cause that would explain the First World War, many events and ideologies preceding the War built up creating an explosive atmosphere that needed but a single small spark to set the entire continent aflame.