From the May 2013 IBDP paper 3 History exam:
November 2013 PAPER 2
Topic 1 Causes, practices and effects of wars
“The role of alliances in the origin and expansion of the war in 1914 was greatly exaggerated.” With reference to the First World War, to what extent do you agree with this statement?
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
From the 2022 marksheme: Evaluate the contribution of the arms race to the outbreak of the First World War.
The question requires that candidates make an appraisal of the contribution of the arms race to the outbreak of the First World War. Candidates may evaluate the impact of the arms race in Europe, especially regarding the naval race between the United Kingdom and Germany.
Other relevant factors may be addressed, for example,
Candidates’ opinions or conclusions will be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
to the arms race, candidates may suggest European imperialism as a key cause of the First World
War, since it increased tensions among European countries and supported the development of the
the army and also reinforced the arms race.
Closely connected
arms race. Candidates may also evaluate the role played by nationalism that led to the growth of
the contribution of the alliance system to the outbreak of the war. There may be some discussion
of Germany’s support for Austria-Hungary in July 1914, (blank cheque). Finally, candidates may
also argue for the importance of aggressive German foreign policy in the years leading up to 1914
Topic 1 Causes, practices and effects of wars
“The role of alliances in the origin and expansion of the war in 1914 was greatly exaggerated.” With reference to the First World War, to what extent do you agree with this statement?
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
As stated by renowned Chinese strategist
Sun Tzu in The Art of War, “we cannot enter into alliances until we are
acquainted with the designs of our neighbours”. This is especially significant
given the context of the First World War, where mistrust and fear for one
another tore through the thinly woven structures of the so-called ‘alliances’.
Whilst Sir John Keegan himself would argue that the alliance system was the
paramount factor contributing to the development of The Great War, AJP Taylor –
amongst a plethora of other historians – would contend that other factors
regarding the influence of rigorous militarism, nationalism, and imperialism
present within the quondam society was far more impactful in the stimulation of
global conflict. This essay will argue that the alliance system was indeed a
crucial constituent to the rise of the First World War, albeit not a singular
entity in driving the entirety of the conflict.
In order to properly grasp the underlying
significance of the alliance systems in terms of provoking the First World War,
one must understand the circumstances which led to their creation in the first
place. Perhaps the most noticeable representations of this would revolve around
the two core alliance systems present throughout The Great War: the ‘Central
Powers’ and the ‘Triple Entente’. The Central Powers in question would consist
of Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and The Ottoman Empire, with a
history that could be traced back to the signing of the original ‘Dual
Alliance’ in 1879. This binding alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary
embodied a military pact which determined the nations’ provision of military
support upon the condition of Russian attack (in response to Austro-Russian
tension after the collapse of the Three Emperors’ League). In 1882, this would
develop into the ‘Triple Alliance’ which served as the basis for the Central
Powers post-1914. Whilst this evolution did eventually oversee the induction of
additional nations, it should be noted that the military strength of the
alliance as a whole was not greatly affected. The 1894 Franco-Russian alliance
was seen as a response to the Triple Alliance and the resulting isolation of
France, and would later develop into the ‘Triple Entente’ in 1907 with the
incorporation of the British. As is already evident, the formation of military
coalitions was largely based on reactionary strategic instincts, an ongoing
struggle to balance out European power in a quickly modernizing world. In the
words of Sydney Bradshaw Fay, “though this system of alliances in one sense
tended to preserve peace, inasmuch as the members within one group often held
their friends or allies in restraint for fear of becoming involved in war
themselves, the system also made it inevitable that if war did come, it would
involve all the Great Powers of Europe,” (The Origins of the World War, 1928)
which illustrates the alliance systems as less of a defense mechanism, but
conversely, a catalyst to the conflict through European polarization.
If one were to consider the more obvious
implications of the ‘failure’ of the alliance systems as a moratorium to
warfare, the Third Balkan War could be seen as a prime example. In retrospect,
the aforementioned conflict regrettably translated into what is referred to as
the ‘First World War’. The interesting aspect in this particular correlation
would hinge on the collective influences of alliance systems. During the
crisis, Germany provided Austria-Hungary with a ‘Blank Cheque’ — an assurance
of unconditional military backing upon however Austria-Hungary wished to
respond to the Serbian threat. As such, a retaliatory ultimatum in respect to
the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand was issued to Serbia, implying
swift military intervention in consequence to the refusal of terms. Serbia,
under the immense pressure of humiliating conditions which threatened to
abolish the nation’s progress towards independence from Austrian influence,
rejected the ultimatum. The subsequent shelling of Belgrade on the 28th of
July signified the beginning of the First World War, as the gears of the
alliance systems were set in motion, and the crisis erupted out of Balkan
territory. This is vividly demonstrated through Russia’s ensuing military
mobilization to aid its ally, and similarly, Germany’s declaration of war upon
Serbia as enforced by the Blank Cheque. This perfectly illustrates the
magnitude to which the wartime coalitions contributed to the outbreak, as they
forced the Balkan Crisis to exceed the domestic environment, and thereby engulf
nations on a global spectrum. Sir John Keegan expresses the notion that “the
effort of peace-making is motivated not by calculation of political interest,
but by repulsion from the spectacle of what war does,” (A History of Warfare, 1993)
which is pertinent in this case because. despite the underlying intention of
perpetuating a balance of power in Europe — whether that be political, social,
or even economic — the initiative to achieve peace from a purely humane and
ethical standpoint would be absent until the populace was subjected to the
shameful terrors of warfare.
On the other hand, one could argue that the
ultimate consequences stemming from the presence of alliance systems was
exceeded by the high degree of nationalism endured by society at the time, and
the generally imperialistic- and thereby militaristic approaches ubiquitous in
the nations in question. This is further justified as distinguished historian,
AJP Taylor, writes that “[the German] bid for continental supremacy was
certainly decisive in bringing on the European War…” (The Struggle for Mastery
in Europe, 1954) which illustrates Germany’s nationalistic intentions,
juxtaposing the holistic notion of operating within an alliance. Furthermore,
this offensive disposition would create additional unrest for the other nations
in the Central Powers (i.e. Italy, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and The Ottoman
Empire), generating tension and distrust in an already fragile coalition. This
in turn would suggest that individual nations would decrease their dependence
on the various alliances, taking diplomatic matters with foreign governments
into their own hands. AJP Taylor’s outlook on Germany’s influence on the war
would easily be supported by that of Fritz Fischer, who largely blamed Germany
as the core element to the upsurge of international conflict as opposed to
conventionally blaming the alliance system. Moreover, one could appropriate the
colossal focus on military expenditure prior to 1914 as evidence to the
individualistic approach nations had towards the upcoming war. This serves as
clear evidence upholding the notion that The Great War was being anticipated by
the masses. According to Jacobson’s World Armament Expenditure (1935),
Germany’s total military expenditure increased by approximately 62%, France’s
expenditure rose by 68%, and Russia escalated its output by almost 50% between
1908 and 1913. Even Otto von Bismarck stated in 1888 that “one day,
the Great European War [would] come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans,”
advocating the inevitability of the entire situation. To simply blame the
alliance system by itself as the sole cause for the First World War would be to
neglect the indisputable readiness and eagerness for nations to wage war.
In conclusion, whilst the extent to which
the alliance system can be denounced as a significant component to the cause of
the First World War, one must consider the alternative factors contributing to
this cataclysmic event. Whilst the more paradigmatic approach would be to
rebuke the alliance systems in place as the fundamental origin of the conflict,
the true cause of the Great War can arguably be found within the profusion of
social, political, and economic issues the world faced at the time on a global
scale. As Sidney Bradshaw Fay himself stated, “a peaceable sensible mass
500 million was hounded into war by a dozen incapable leaders. Imperialism,
nationalism, militarism, and alliances- all these things meshed together to
create a collective impetus to war,” which therein implies a more balanced
criticism towards the various- equally significant aspects which inadvertently
led to the outbreak of the First World War.
-->
In
an arguably already tense Europe, a new trend within the continent’s imperial
nations aided in a panicked response, debatably leading to the outcome of the
largest war the world had seen in centuries, possibly ever, being the great
war. As a nation began witnessing surrounding powers joining forces in combat,
a new crisis began: countries were being shoved into corners by the
ever-growing allied forces, with their only way out being in an act of force.
This essay will explore how, and to what extent, the Ally System in between
several European nations led to the eruption of the first world war, and how a
system designed for defense resulted in unwanted offense.
The
ally system came as an attempt to cease war through cold combat. Nations
joining forces and coming to each-others aid was supposedly a procedure to end
the “thirst for war,” as nations either stood alone or joined said alliances in
fear of becoming a lesser counterpart. The leading positions in Europe were
genuinely persuaded that the alliance system would come as an end to war, as
interpreted in the diplomat Arthur Nicholson’s May 1914 statement: “Since
I have been in the Foreign Office, I have not seen such clear waters.” In times
of great tension, even the ‘brightest and loudest’ of Germanophobes believed
Europe to be under control. The British had their colonial conflicts to work
with, and with the French and Russian forces as allies these had little fear
over the outbreak of a possible war. According to many historians as well as
the bureaucrats of 1914, Germany would never engage in a war on two fronts.
However, in July of 1914, Germany mobilized units to participate in the
unthinkable: the infamous Schlieffen Plan. Germany’s enrollment within the
war is nevertheless still questioned, as evidence suggests that the ally system
was possibly abused by giants Russia as well as Austrio-Hungary in their
attempt to ignite a war. As the German ally delivered their ultimatum to
Serbian borders after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in late
June of the same year, both members of the Triple Alliance were aware that
involvement from the French or British was unlikely, possibly forcing Russia to
retreat as well. German foreign ambassador, Gottlieb von Jagow, concluded that
“France [and ally] too, desired a localization of the conflict.” European
forces slowly began witnessing a switch in expectations, as it became less
likely for the conflict to escalate. Germany, as the ally system had been
intended for, stood in the midst of a debate, as the European giants (from
British perspective) attempted to prevent the outbreak of a war; especially one
over, debatably, such a small conflict. Europe was mistaken. As Austrio-Hungary
declared war with Serbia, who had rejected the ultimatum allowing Austrian
troops to enter the nation and demolish terroristic groups, rejected under
Russia’s persuasion of doing so, the Soviets soon responded. Within days of the
28th July war declaration, Europe’s eastern powers were at war. Russia had
managed to pull France into the conflict, distracting Germany on a second front
as their forces mobilized. With the giant Germany forced into a corner, Russia
had had their wish granted. It is therefore debated that Germany and Austria,
two nations set on invading Serbia, would have been ignored without an alliance
system, as no other nation’s would have gotten involved. This is why, as Russia
came to the aid of the Serbian forces, an upcoming war was undeniable. With
Europe’s greatest forces linked in promise of war-aid, backing down became
lesser of an option for any nation still praying for peace. The alliance
system, originally intended to secure a tense continent, became the final
tipping point as it pulled Europe’s giants into an escalation of the largest
kind.
Although
the ally system can be seen as a factor when analyzing the factual statistics
leading up to the outbreak of the great war, it can also be seen as a shared ignitor
for the outbreak of conflicts. In hindsight, events leading up to the war were
massively misrepresented by either side: intentions of war had already
initiated whilst others still believed that peace was a possibility. Either
side, whether triple entente or triple alliance, knew that a war would act as a
falling domino, to which all leading nations would be torn into battle. It was
therefore attempted to subside any signs of upcoming conflict, as even Russia’s
foreign minister, Sazonov, reassured the German ambassador, Pourtalès, that
“the cabinet [will] decide not to issue [an order of troop mobilization] until
Austrio-Hungary assumes a hostile position towards Russia.” Russia, in
diplomacy with Germany, failed to mention the largest factor within the
discussion: Serbia. In an unlucky turn of events, as Austro-Hungary assumed
their hostile position towards Serbia, Russia immediately mobilized. As
the New York Tribune wrote in their 1914 article, “Russia mobilized
their troops; [and] Germany [are also] eager for war.” Russia’s mobilization
wasn’t necessarily a disappointment to the triple alliance, as ‘hunger for war’
debatably hadn’t left the continent for centuries prior, yet complete
miscommunication could be blamed for the outbreak of a war just as much as the
alliance system itself. Even Austro-Hungarian foreign ambassador von Schoen,
the same man who had delivered Germany her statement regarding France’s belief
of war being unnecessary, concluded post-war that he had “no authority nor
experience over French foreign policy.” Within complete misinterpretation as
well as misguided trust in an enemy, either side believed to have been in
control of the situation, whilst it had already pursued the intent of war.
German deception, as later unveiled, had played a large role in the escalation
of war also. British foreign secretary Grey issued a statement to Berlin,
requesting Germany (believed to have been holding an anti-war position) to
discuss relations to Serbia with the Austro-Hungarian government. Germany, who
agreed to aiding the English, however allegedly recommended Austria ignore the
British threat. In a single deceptive ordeal, Germany was falsely portrayed as
another country disliking the idea of war, preventing Britain from possibly
issuing an earlier threat to Berlin, which could’ve affected the outcome of the
war. In a single massive misinterpretation in which neither entente member nor
alliance member managed to comprehend and assume another nations position to
this upcoming conflict, the war had already been brought to a point of no
return. Although the alliance system clearly triggered an eruption of
mobilization all across Europe, it can be debated that said system was
completely abused, whether in accidental misinterpretation or in an attempt to
start a war, as the real issue behind the outbreak of the war came through the
deception of nations; all who intended to go to war in the first place.
On
the other side, however, to this date there is still possible lack of
explanation as to why England joined the war. On the 4th of August, as
German forces mobilized through Belgian territory during their execution of the
highly anticipated Schlieffen Plan, the British King, along with prime
minister H. H. Asquith, summoned a call to arms; a date, which historians claim
to be the true ignition to the atrocities committed during the great war. It is
debated that Britain felt a need to aid their allies in combat against a
dominant European force, yet the multitude of backdoors within British
contracts as well as personal interests for the nation actually speak against a
required entrance into the war against the triple alliance. As the war became
an anticipation in the eyes of many, the debate as to the necessity of British
aid within the war became a thoroughly discussed topic within British walls.
Foreign office mandarin, Eyre Crowe, thoughtfully issued his statement as to
the outcome of the war: “Should the war come, and England stand aside, one of
two things must happen. Either Germany win, crush France and humiliate Russia.
What will be the position of a friendless England? Or, France and Russia win.
What would their attitude towards us be? What about the Mediterranean?” As
the largest imperial force on the globe, British colonies all across the globe
became a threat. The British had no intent to sort out a collapsing Europe, as
their main interests led back to the upkeep of the British empire. For much of
the 19th century, Russian forces began advancing into the Dardanelles, a
section of land leading into the Mediterranean. Russia’s colonization of the
Dardanelles would have given British opposition access to the largest existing
trade route in Britain’s economy: the connection between the United Kingdom and
their largest associates, India. As Europe’s imperialistic nations began
spreading across the globe, the British were struggling to keep their own
colonies under a single rule. Even Kaiser Wilhelm II, the man who cursed the
British as a foolish nation who had gone to war over a “scrap of paper”
(Britain and Belgium’s 1939 Treaty of London), knew that Britain’s biggest
interest concluded with equal power accommodation across opposing nations. The
Englishmen’s biggest threat came through a possible single dominant leadership
within Europe. As Germany rose to power, England’s new threat became the
absolutely dominant force of Wilhelm II’s Germany. However, as Eyre Crowe did,
nobody else mentioned what would happen if France and Russia won. If this were
the case, Europe’s new leaders would come as a combination of two nations
within the triple entente. The British had arrived at a single position: attack
Germany and allow your neighbour and his ally to become unforeseeable forces,
or, ignore the war and watch Germany finish the Baghdad Railway, coming
unnecessarily close to British colonies. Furthermore, England’s choice to join
the war left them praying that their allies commit to the Triple Entente. As
the Entente formed in 1907, arriving with Germany’s escalation of forces, all
three parties agreed to a non-mutual defence in the case of war. This meant
that England had no necessity to join the war. This however also meant, that in
the unlikely scenario of another upcoming war, in response to WWI, neither the
French nor the Russians would need to aid the English. The British were putting
their trust into two nations, which had before been designated as opposition,
possibly enemies. In a non-mutual defence agreement with large backdoors for
‘unfriendly’ nations, the British were not only debating in irrational thought,
yet simultaneously risking the wealth of their colonies over the fear of having
a new possible neighbour; Germany.
To
conclude, the alliance system came as a large additional factor towards the
eruption of the first world war, yet it is difficult to interpret it as one of
the main causes. Although the alliance system aided those nations which wanted
to go to war more than it did those who attempted to avoid it, manipulation and
misperception all across Europe became one of the leading causes as to begin
the great war. Similarly, the multitude of coincidences within poorly executed
decisions leading into the war came as a great ordeal when analysing potential
points of outbreak. As stated, England’s choice to join and escalate an already
large war into a world war can be seen as controversial if not poorly
justified. In a series of ‘unlucky’ events leading up to the great war, some
already centuries prior, the ally system can only be seen as yet another heavy
factor driving all of Europe to go to war.
References Cited:
· Sass,
Erik. “Austria-Hungary Rejects Serbia's Response.” WWI Centennial:
Austria-Hungary Rejects Serbia's Response | Mental Floss, Mental Floss, 25 July
2014, mentalfloss.com/article/58008/wwi-centennial-austria-hungary-rejects-serbias-response.
· Archives,
The National. “Why Did Britain Go to War? Background.” The National
Archives, The National Archives, 27 Jan. 2004,
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm.
· Mason,
Emma. “Why Britain Was Right to Go to War in 1914.” History Extra, BBC, 1
Aug. 2014,
www.historyextra.com/feature/first-world-war/why-britain-was-right-go-war-1914.
· Kennedy,
Maev. “Britain Entering First World War Was 'Biggest Error in Modern
History'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Jan. 2014,
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson.
To what extent can it be said that the
First World War was caused by the alliance system?
Although
most historians agree that the alliance system played a role in the development
of the First World War, the opinions of to what extent it did so vary. For
example, Sidney Bradshaw Fay summarizes the causes of World War One as, “They
may be conveniently grouped under five heads: (a) the system of secret
alliances; (b) militarism; (c) nationalism; (d) economic imperialism; and (e)
the newspaper press.” However, when looking at the alliances that were formed,
especially the agreements and the secrecy behind them, it becomes clear that
even though alliances did play a role in the war developing, they were more of
a symptom of the existing political tensions, than a cause of the actual
war.
It
is easy to blame the alliances for the initiation of the First World War. The
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused the outbreak of a war between
Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Thereby Russia took sides with Serbia. Due to the
Dual Alliance (formed in 1879) between Austria-Hungary and Germany, the German
military was obligated to support Austria-Hungary against Russia. As a result
of this alliance, and the “Blank Cheque” the German Emperor’s guarantee to
support Austria-Hungary in the case of an attack on Serbia (issued on July 5th 1914),
Austria-Hungary was able to declare war on Serbia with the confidence of being
able to withstand a retaliatory Russian attack. Further alliances that can be
seen to have led to an involvement of further countries in the First World War,
was the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia (formed in 1907) in
combination with the Franco Russian alliance. The Franco-Russian alliance was
an alliance of mutual defense. Many believe, that this is what caused the World
War to start because it forced Germany to go into a quick offence against
France. The Germans devised the “Schlieffen Plan” to avoid a two-front war and
in an attempt to overrun France before Russia was fully mobilized and capable
of supporting the French. In retaliation to the initiation of the Schlieffen
Plan, Britain entered the war. Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary of
Britain, justified the British involvement by proclaiming he wanted to “honor
the Triple Entente.” Thereby he aimed to strengthen the British-French
relationship by acting beyond the call of duty and defending France, even
though the Triple Entente was not an alliance of mutual defense. A final reason
for which the alliances of the First World War may be seen as a cause is the
balance of power that existed. When regarding the alliances before the start of
the war, they were France and Russia against Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Italy. In this state the power of the alliances is relatively balanced. This
led Germany to attack abruptly in order to gain an element of surprise.
Alliances with a greater imbalance may have discouraged an attack. If Britain
and especially Italy had made their intentions clear beforehand the war would
most likely never have started because a German attack would have inevitably
led to a defeat. The effectiveness of unbalanced alliances in preserving peace
is demonstrated by today’s NATO. Since the NATO has been founded there have not
been any major wars by the countries involved in the organization because an
attack on the NATO would come close to a suicide attempt.
On the other hand, there are also arguments
as to how the alliances did not act as a cause of the war. The main argument
for this perspective is that, the Triple Entente between Russia, France and
Britain was solely a friendly agreement and there were no military obligations
in this entente from Britain’s point of view. Thus it is likely that the
reasons for Britain’s involvement in the war extended beyond the intention of
wanting to honor the Triple Entente and strengthening French-British
relationships. As Britain is an island nation without an own oil source, a
plausible motive for Britain’s involvement is that the British wanted to secure
a supply source of oil. Oil was an especially important resource as their
military fleet consisted largely of dreadnaughts which were dependent on oil as
fuel. This potential motive is supported by the fact that Britain’s first move
after the formation of an alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Germany was
to send troops to Iraq, which was only partially in the Ottoman Empire. There
the British obtained oil considerable amounts of oil from the Anglo-Persian oil
pipeline. Another possible reason for the British participation in the war was
the fear of Germany controlling the entirety of Central Europe. If Germany were
to have achieved this dominance of Europe, they would eventually expand their
colonies in Africa. This intention had been previously indicated by their
involvement in the Moroccan crisis. They also feared that if Germany finished
the railroad from Berlin to Baghdad, the Germans would be dangerously close to
India (at the time a British colony), leading to possible invasion. This fear
was further fueled by Kaiser Wilhelm who had declared that he wanted Germany to
become an empire similar to Britain. Thereby Wilhelm initiated a significant
expansion of the German military fleet. This in turn doubled the importance of
oil for Britain as they needed to be mobile and at full strength in the case of
a German attack.
When regarding the alliances that were
formed and especially the secrecy behind all of them, it is suggested that they
were a symptom of the already lingering atmosphere of war, rather than a plan
to start a war. The most evident example of this was the Franco-Russian alliance
from 1894. Both countries feared that with Germany being unified since 1871 and
a part of the “Triple Alliance”, they were looking to expand their empire, so
they formed the Franco-Russian alliance to protect one another. Any other
reason for their alliance is almost unimaginable, simply because the two
countries were polar opposites. France had recently executed their king and
abandoned the monarchy to turn into a democracy and had achieved almost
complete freedom of speech and expression. Russia on the other hand, was still
ruled by the Tsar, oppressed the peasants and the workers and completely
rejected the idea of freedom of expression. This strongly implies that the
Franco-Russia alliance was not an offensive alliance. In summary, even though
it can be seen how the alliances caused the First World War, it is believed
that the alliances were a symptom of the atmosphere of war that was already
arousing than a cause or reason to start a war.
In
conclusion, the alliances did to
some extent cause the World War, however not as much as often said. Even
though, the alliances caused Germany to become involved in the war,
Italy and
Britain proved that alliances didn’t mean very much and joined the war
out of
self-interest rather than because of their alliances. Furthermore, the
secrecy
behind the alliances and the alliances themselves show that they were
planned
solely for defensive purposes, because the countries felt that a war was
on the
outbreak. Overall, the alliances started out as a symptom of political
tensions
and then later developed into a cause for the escalation of the First
World
War.
-->
To What Extent Can it be Said that the
First World War was caused by the Alliance System?
“1914 was an unbelievably complicated
world.” Claims Professor Michael Neiburg of the US Army War College. This can
be used to argue that the cause of the first world war cannot be so
specifically pinpointed on such a reason as the Alliance system. Although the
alliance system may be partly at fault for the cause of the first world war,
there are various other aspects, which can also be viewed as significant main
factors of the start of the war as well as certain factors of the alliance
system. Historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay himself stated his viewpoint of the
cause, which was that, “Imperialism, nationalism, militarism and alliances …
create a creative impetus to war”. This essay will argue that although the
alliance system is undeniably significant to the cause of such a conflict, it
is frankly impossible to pinpoint such an accusation on only one specific
aspect in regards to such a major war.
A common conception of the official start
of the first world war was when the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
of Austria occurred on the 28th of June 1914, which had no involvement of
alliances nor any further countries other than Serbia. This assassination led
the Austro-Hungarian empire to declare war on Serbia a month later. Sir
Christopher Clarke, a famous historian and Cambridge University Professor
argued that Franz Ferdinand would have returned to Vienna with his wife, had
the assassination not occurred and that even though he was racist about the
Balkan people, “he was someone who had absolutely consistently argued against
any kind of military adventures in the Balkans, in particular against Serbia.” This
supports the well-known argument and first line from Sir John Keegan’s
book, The First World War, “The First World War was a tragic and
unnecessary conflict.” The book was originally published in 1999, meaning that
because it was such a long time after the end of the war, the source was
considerably more reliable and less biased. Sir Christopher Clarke’s statement
also proves that the declaration of war against Serbia was not a pre-planned
decision, meaning that alliances had no involvement of such a pronouncement
before the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand may have given Austria a reason for
such a declaration, it can be argued that this was more of an act of
nationalism, stemming from imperialism as Serbia was at the time imperialised
by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria was very much affected and enraged by
the assassination of their archduke, showing this in various ways, such as a
propaganda poster showing an Austrian fist crushing a Serb with the words,
“Serbien muss sterbien!”, which translates to “Serbia must die!”. Such
propaganda shows that the Austrians were just as angry over the situation as
the Serbs were enough to assassinate the archduke of Austria. After declaring
war on Serbia exactly one month later, chaos was caused all over the world, which
developed into conflicts between other countries and eventually advanced in the
First World War. Altogether, although the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand of Austria is a commonly known to be the starting point of World War
I, the alliance system was not involved with this event.
On the other hand, there were considerable
connections between alliances, which brought multiple countries into the war
and therefore would be a worthy argument for the alliance system to have caused
the First World War. At the time of the beginning of the First World War in
1914, the two main alliances were the ‘Triple Alliance’ between Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Italy although the ‘Central Powers’ only consisted of
Germany and Austria-Hungary, and a so-called ‘alliance’ between Britain, Russia
and France, although Britain and France were only united through a past treaty,
the Entente Cordiale in 1904. Russia also had an alliance with Serbia, meaning
that when Austria declared war on their alliance, Russian troops then mobilised
themselves in preparation for any further developments. Because of such an
immobilisation, then angered Germans then declared war on Russia, causing its
allies France and Belgium to begin full immobilisation. According to great
historian Sir John Keegan himself in his book, The First World War when
talking about the German declaration of war against Russia, “thus making, in
the words of the German ultimatum to France ‘war inevitable’ unless Germany
withdrew its ultimatum to Russia” However this would never happen as both
Germany and Russia as it would be “incompatible with such status” for both
great powers. Such a statement from Germany shows that they were unwilling to
put aside their pride in order for peace, as neither ultimatum was made with
any of Germany’s alliances. Although Austria was the country, which had
declared war on Serbia, because of their close alliance with Germany, Germany
had taken it upon themselves to go to such measures to aid and protect Austria.
However, this act of alliances between Germany and Austria also caused issues
with Serbia’s alliances, Russia, which led to Russia’s other alliances getting
involved in the conflict. Overall, this proves to an extent that because of so
many connections all over to alliance systems, it could be argued that the
alliance system did in fact cause the First World War.
However, it can be argued that in some
cases, although the alliance system was a powerful bind of unity between
empires, it did not always bring conflict among certain countries. An example
of this would be the United States of America. Even though the US was part of
the allied powers during World War I, they did not actually join the conflict
until 1917, only a year before the end of the war. This proves that the alliance
system is not always valid because the US had alliances, which all had major
rolls in the war, but on the 4th of August 1914, the same day of Britain’s
declaration of war against Germany, Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United
States declared its neutrality, showing that they would not get involved in any
conflict. Historian Jonah Goldberg made a statement, in which he called
President Wilson a “fascist by nature” and that the president had been offended
for himself and his country that the Central Powers sought to gain victory in
World War I. Although Jonah Goldberg may not have been the most reliable source,
as he is more commonly known for being a columnist and an author, it is clear
that he was not being biased towards his country, the United States. His
statement shows that he would argue, as many others would agree with him, that
he did not agree with the decision of Woodrow Wilson to stay neutral during
1914 when the war was at its start. This shows that although it can be easy to
put the blame on the alliance system as to why the First World War began, there
are cases, such as the United States, where they did not get involved with the
war, even though they had several alliances in the midst of the international
conflict.
In conclusion, although the alliance system
may have undeniable responsibilities for the cause of the First World War, it
cannot be specifically identified as the only reason why the conflict occurred.
The main causes of the First World War would be identified as militarism,
alliances, imperialism and nationalism according to many famous historians,
such as Sidney Bradshaw Fay, which have such a vast majority of events within
those particular causes. There have been proved to be exceptions with the
alliance system by not coming to aid alliances, and there have been other main
cause, namely the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, where the alliance
system was not involved, but was still a major cause of the First World War.
-->
To what extent can it be said that the
first world war was caused by the alliance system?
As a European international student, it is
evident that alliances similar to the ones in WWI exist nowadays. If this is in
a form of the entente cordiale, Franco German brigade or the Islamic military
alliance. However, the effect of these alliance systems differ significantly
from the ones in the 18th-19th century. An alliance system is defined to
occur when countries join forces or work together in order to achieve a certain
goal. This was very popular in the 18th century, as having alliances that
when one country is in need the other country/countries help them out.
Nevertheless, the problem with alliances is that they were formed in secret
most of the time and only revealed to the public later on. The major issue with
alliances was that if one member of an alliance declared war on a country or a
country within a different alliance, the conflict would quickly accelerate. At
the time, war spread rapidly, due to the complex alliance system and forceful
nationalism.
To a certain extent it can be said that the
dual alliance system caused World War I. The alliance system consisted of two
groups. The central powers comprised Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and
Turkey. The allied powers were made up of Russia, France, Great Britain and the
US. It can be presumed that if Germany would have never allied with
Austria-Hungary, then a “tragic and unnecessary conflict” could have been
prevented as Sir John Keegan said. “Unnecessary because the train of events led
to its outbreak might have been broken at any point”. The strong dual alliance
between Germany and Austria-Hungary was formed in secret in 1979, which
promised to support each other if Russia ever attacked. This alliance is
crucial, since Germany shared borders and language with Austria-Hungary, which
connected the two allies during the war, in addition to promising each other
safety for the other country. The influence which Germany had on
Austria-Hungary, formed a strong bond between the two and resulted in causing
the First World War. Due to the alliance system, over 10 additional nations got
involved in the Great War. The triple entente were the allied powers, which
became a formal alliance in the outbreak of the great war. The purpose of this
alliance was to balance the growing power of Germany. However, even though
Italy had a treaty with Germany, they decided to secretly ally with the allied
powers. Consequently, when Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary (entering WWI)
on the side of the allied powers, the Italian army immediately advanced into
the South Tyrol region and the Isonzo River, where Austro-Hungarian troops met
them with stiff defense. At the end of World War I, 615,000 Italians had been
killed or died. When the Austrian-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia,
Russia came in to aid Serbia, as they were allied. This caused Germany to
declare war on Russia, as they were allied with Austria-Hungary. Germany was
aware that France would go to war with them, therefore they decided to attack
France quickly and invaded via neutral Belgium and Luxembourg, which caused
Great Britain to step in and stop the Germans. It was a muddle of allegiances
and old conflicts with two sides forming the allies and the central powers. As
even Nicholas II to Kaiser Wilhelm said on the 29th of July 1914, “… I beg
you in the name of our friendship to do what you can to stop you allies from
going too far”, which underlines the influence which the allies had on each
other. When the Austrian-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia, Russia came
in to aid Serbia, as they were allied. This caused Germany to declare war on
Russia, as they were allied with Austria-Hungary. Germany was aware that France
would go to war with them, therefore they decided to attack France quickly and
invaded via neutral Belgium and Luxembourg, which caused Great Britain to step
in and stop the Germans. It was a muddle of allegiances and old conflicts with
two sides forming the allies and the central powers.
On the other side, of all major powers,
Russia was the first to mobilize its massive army and it was that mobilization
which drew France, Germany and Britain into the war. This mobilization is
considered to be unreasonable, as when Austria declared war on Serbia on the 28th of
July, Austria was not able to mobilize their own troops for another two weeks
due to the harvest break they were currently in. However, if theoretically
Austria had attacked their initial plan was an attack on Belgrade and not on
Russia. Nevertheless, if Austria would have launched an attack on Russia,
Russia had already begun with their pre mobilization on July 25th, before the
Serbs responded to the Ultimatum. This resulted in German’s and Austrian’s to
receive reports of Russian troops massing on their borders, which seem like war
to them. Regardless, Russia became the first power to essentially put its war
machine in motion on the 30th of July. This mobilization could have been
done, due to the Balkans being next to the Dardanelles, the straits which give
access to the black sea, which Russia had to maintain influence over in order
to ensure traffic through those strains. This was especially important if the
Ottoman Empire was going to form an alliance with Germany, which they did.
Another reasoning behind the early mobilization could have been that Russia was
in danger of being a fool in European politics due to their humiliating loss to
Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, which was followed by their inability to stop
Austria from occupying Bosnia from the Ottoman Empire in 1908. Consequently,
Russia’s history of prior weaknesses meant that the foreign policy makers
dreaded that without some significant action, Russia would not be taken serious
anymore. Following Austria’s Ultimatum, Sergey Sazonov, Russia’s foreign
minister decided that Russia: “could not remain a passive spectator whilst a
Slavonic people were being trampled on. If Russia failed to fulfill her
historic mission, she would be considered a decadent state and would henceforth
have to take second place among the powers... If at this critical juncture, the
Serbs were abandoned to their fate, Russian prestige in the Balkans would
collapse utterly.”
Once the war ended, the conquering nations
decided that Germany caused the first World War. The famous ‘war guilt’ clause
in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, stated this: “The Allied and
Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany
and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and
Associated Governments … have been subjected as a consequence of the war
imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies”. This argument
is supported by the fact that Germany was the first to declare war on the 1st of
August on a major power, Russia. However, this blame was revised by historians
in the 1930’s as it was unclear to what extent Germany was responsible for the
war. In 1934 in David Lloyd George’s War Memoirs, British Prime Minister
acknowledged the responsibility: “We muddled into war”. Generally, the
situation in Germany was very tense for over 30 years, “Kaiser Wilhelm II
followed a policy based on strength instead of caution”, R.J. Unstead stated in
Century of Change (1963). Kaiser Wilhelm was convinced that Germany was denied
their ‘place in the sun’ and therefore he boarded a vast program of naval and
military armaments, which drew France and Russia closer together for mutual
protection. Another reason why Germany is partially responsible for the Great
War, is that Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary and due to the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand they did not have a choice but to
fully support Austria-Hungary. Additionally, the blank cheque should also be
considered, as Kaiser Wilhelm guaranteed Austria-Hungary that they will support
them no matter what. However, this “deal” was never recorded and was a verbal
agreement and no one was aware of this and therefore no one is certain if it
happened and therefore the it is questioned if that was the reasoning behind
Germany declaring war on Russia.
The complicated issue about who is
accountable for the start of World War I, is that you can trace the causes back
a lot of ways. Back then, the decision of going to war was in the hands of a
group of diplomats. These diplomats kept detailed records of all of their
dealings, which leaves historians with the responsibility of going through all
these sources and making choices on which ones to emphasize, and sometimes even
believe, since often these sources are in direct conflict. Additionally, it
comes down to perception of the facts presented. In conclusion, the alliance
system certainly contributed to the start of the First World War, however it
cannot be said that this solely caused the war, since a lot of other factors
like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the role of Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia should be taken in consideration.
To What Extent Can it be Said that the
First World War was caused by the Alliance System?
Although the alliance system is often
argued as over simplistic to be the cause of the First World War, looking into
the tensions it caused one could argue the intentions Germany and its leaders
had pushed Austria-Hungary to pursue war with Serbia resulting in the start of
World War I. Fritz Fischer’s thesis on the cause of the war focuses on the aims
and policies of Germany’s key leaders before the outbreak of the War and shows
in laborious detail his claims that Germany’s expansionist aims encouraged them
to start war with Serbia. Therefore, it can be said that although the alliance
between Germany and Austria-Hungary allowed Austria-Hungary to declare war, the
intentions of the alliance system were unsubstantial and show minimal
involvement in the true cause of the World War I.
The triple alliance had been active since
1882 but Germany and Austria-Hungary had been closely allied since 1879 because
of The Dual Aliiance. This meant that the two countries had supported each
other through many decades by June 28th 1914 when Archduke Franz Ferdinand
was shot. Although we can identify somewhat of a benefit of this alliance
throughout the years there has never been a situation in which one of them
supported another as much as Germany did during the July crisis following the
assassination of Franz Ferdinand. After evaluating the archives of German
leadership at the time, Franz Fischer came to the conclusion that one of the
main aims (among others) of Germany at the time was to encourage
Austria-Hungary to start a war with Serbia, especially after the ultimatum
given on July 23rd 1914.2 Claiming
that Germany wanted to become a great power and expand, Fischer says the July
crisis was when Kaiser Bethmann Hollweg tried to move Germany in the direction
of the German policy created. If this were to be the true intention
of Germany during the crisis it would explain why they continued to encourage
Austria-Hungary to initiate war with Serbia even when it seemed clear that such
a war could not be confined to just these two nations. With Germany issuing
their support to Austria-Hungary during this time, after Serbia responded to
the ultimatum with less than full acceptance, A-H felt as though they could
seek revenge through a war. All this shows why Fischer claims that
Germanys expansionist aims led to them supporting their alliance with
Austria-Hungary, leading to the outbreak of the war.
In The
Origins of the First World War George Martel 1clearly states that he believes that the transformation of the July
Crisis into a war is primarily the responsibility of Germany as the German
government felt this was the perfect opportunity which would eventually show
diplomatic triumph for Germany. He believes that Germany thought encouraging
Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia would contain internal unrest between
the triple alliance and triple entente and simultaneously reduce the Balkans
that would suit the Austro-German interests. Instead of this happening,
Austria-Hungary caused an up rise my mobilizing against Serbia which led to
Russia a day later partially mobilizing against Austria and Germany. Although
Russia was not predominantly involved within the previous actions during the
July crisis, the Tsar chose to abruptly mobilize against Austria-Hungary and
Germany which then became only a partial mobilization because of the Tsar’s
relationship with Kaiser Wilhelm. By Russia doing this, they opened themselves
up to war with Germany and Austria-Hungary although they didn’t need this.
After Russia’s partial mobilization, on July 31st is when Germany sends an
ultimatum ordering them to halt their general mobilization but Russia
stubbornly refused. Russia was not allied with Serbia therefore they had no
need or responsibility to protect them from Austria-Hungary which meant their
involvement was uncalled for and resulted in another one of the major powers
becoming involved which made it more widespread instead of just between
Austria-Hungary and Serbia. All this, shows that Russia’s alliance to France
and Britain had no importance when it came to their decision to partially
mobilize against Austria-Hungary and Germany showing that the alliances did not
provide a strong motive for the outbreak of the World War I.
In addition to this, the intentions behind the
alliances were very unclear which would show that they were too weak to be able
to be the sole cause of the outbreak of the War. The alliances themselves were
very general as there were no specific military obligations between the Triple
Entente which would mean that Russia, France and Britain were not obligated to
defend or help each other. This also shows that Russia had no obligation to
help ‘defend’ Serbia by partially mobilizing into Austria-Hungary. This then
eventually led to Germany declaring war on Russia on August 1st 1914. With
this happening France and Belgium joined eventually leading to Britain becoming
involved. At that point is when it became a World War. Russia’s partial
mobilization resulted in Germany feeling threatened then declaring war on
Russia. Although Russia and Serbia had close bilateral relations there was no
formal alliance that justified Russia trying to defend Serbia from
Austria-Hungary by partially mobilizing. Russia was left in a
humiliating state after their recent defeat to Japan in 1904 or the loss of
Bosnia-Herzegovina which resulted in them wanting to prove themselves in 1914
to prove itself. Trying to show strength and power they thought their partial
mobilization would result in Austria-Hungary holding back but as G.J. Meyer
says, it was then when what was supposed to be the 3rd Balkan war turned
into a European war. This is because their mobilization into Austria-Hungary
caught Germany’s attention. This shows that Russia’s mobilization was
unnecessary and without achieving any substantial aims. Russia could have
achieved a much more useful attempt against Austria-Hungary through alternative
channels that would have been more likely for them to succeed.
When evaluating the extent to which the alliances
caused the First World War, it is evident that the alliances were not the
culminating cause of the war. As discussed, the nations were not bound by any
military obligations, such as we have NATO now, which freed them from the need
to protect their allies in the case of an attack on one of them. In
order to fully evaluate the cause of World War I, one must take into
consideration the other factors involving these nations. Thus we can see that
the alliance system was not the trigger that caused the war and instead was a
precaution for the nations involved due to the growing expansionist aims and
growing arms race. Therefore, the alliance system is not to blame, instead the
policies followed with the aims of expansion, Russia mobilizing in a war that
did not need them as well as previous existing conflict between the nations
caused the outbreak of the Great war.
2 (Moses, John. Encyclopedia
of Historians and Historical Writing. Pg. 387)
1 (Martel, George. The
Origins of the First World War. Pg. 46)
-->
To what extent can it be said that the First World
War was caused by the Alliance System?
“The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary
conflict” as Sir John Keegan wrote in his book “The First World War”. Although
this is a conclusion drawn by many, the cause of this unnecessary conflict is
still debated amongst many historians. Nevertheless, it is generally supported
that the main causes of WW1, were militarism, alliances, imperialism,
nationalism and the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. However, many
historians still argue about which of these was the deciding factor of starting
the great war. When looking at events leading up to World War I it can be seen
that the main cause of this War was the complex system of Alliances, as this
caused the War to escalate globally. These main alliances include the Triple
Alliance, Triple Entente, amongst other smaller agreements, such as the Dual
Entente between France and Russia. On the other hand, due to factors, such as
militarism and imperialism, which created a lot of tension prior to the war, it
can also be argued that the alliance system was not the primary cause of WW1.
Therefore, in order to analyze the extent to which the alliance system caused
the first world war, both perspectives will be considered in this essay.
The Alliance System was undoubtedly one of the main
causes of WW1. The complexity of this system, caused countries with entirely
different ideologies to come together and support each other in war, purely
because of alliances. Prior to the war, countries were split into two sets of
rival powers that were formed by alliances. On one hand was the Triple
Alliance, that was established in 1882, between Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Italy, which main purpose was to protect their countries in case a war breaks
out, but was also created in an effort to isolate Russia and France, who had
recently lost the Franco Prussian war of 1871 against Germany. Due to this
strong alliance, other countries began to feel threatened, causing the
formation of the Triple Entente, an agreement between France, Britain and
Russia. Russia, who had considered themselves ‘protector of slavs’ was also in
agreement with Serbia to aid them in the case of war. This agreement especially
affected the chain of events in the beginning of the war, after the
assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28th 1914. This is due
to that, a month later, on July 23 Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia,
indicating that if not accepted fully, Austria would declare war against
Serbia. However, as Serbia was in agreement with Russia, they did not deem it
necessary to accept the ultimatum, as they were supported by a large and
powerful country. However, to Austria-Hungary’s benefit, the “Blank Cheque” of
July 6th states that Germany would provide unconditional support to
Austria-Hungary in the case of a conflict with Serbia. Therefore, Germany was
automatically involved in the war as well and escalated it quickly when
declaring war on Russia on august 1. Similar Patterns can be seen through the
effects of the Schlieffen Plan. This is due to that, as in the Treaty of London
signed in 1839, Article VII created an agreement between countries in which
Belgium was deemed to be neutral. However, when Germany went through Belgium
and the Netherlands in an effort to get to France, they broke this treaty.
Therefore, as Britain was in agreement with Belgium, they joined the war as
well, extending it further across the globe. Through these alliances or various
agreements, it can be seen how the alliances to countries involved in the
existing conflict, sparked a chain reaction throughout the world involving more
and more countries as the war progressed.
Furthermore, Alliances also brought countries with
completely different ideologies together, such as in the case of the triple
entente. This is due to that in 1894, when the Dual Entente was formed, Russia
had the world’s biggest army, but was also under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II
who was in control of the country, allowing no freedom of speech. Therefore,
Russia’s alliance to France, and later Britain, seems very unusual, as both of
these countries were ruled under a democracy and condoned freedom of speech.
This especially depicts the complexity of the alliance system, as these
entirely different countries would not be able to work together from the
beginning, and therefore already created tension amongst themselves. Similarly,
agreements, such as the Triple Entente, were also especially bound to fail, as
even Britain’s foreign minister Sir Edward Grey himself said “We are not part
of the Franco-Russian Alliance”, again portraying the complexity of this system
and how alliances were dependent on the country rather than what was actually
signed. Therefore, ironically even though the alliance system was created with
the intent to prevent war, due to different ideologies amongst alliances,
creating unnatural agreements, the war escalated around the world, making it
the primary cause of the first world war.
On the other hand, when looking at the events
leading up to the war it can also be seen that the alliance system was not the
only factor that started the first world war. Another cause of World War I is
the imperialism of individual countries. For example, Britain’s imperialism
throughout the World allowed them to increase their economic state, making
London the banking capital of the world and creating a leading world power. For
example, by the 1900 Britain extended over five continents, encompassing 10% of
the world’s land mass. Furthermore, Imperialism in Africa or ‘the scramble of
Africa’ created a lot of Tension between European countries, especially Britain
and France, as these countries could import many minerals and materials from
Africa in order to expand their military and improve their economic state. The
scramble of Africa amongst Britain and France also created rivalries between
Germany, as they only had a small amount of land in Africa, such as Tanganyika.
Therefore, Germany had to go through British and French territories, amongst
other countries, such as Spain in order to transport minerals back to Germany.
Therefore, this caused a lot of tension amongst these countries, as they were
driven by competitiveness in order to build a strong nation. Furthermore, not
only was tension created, but countries were increasing their empire, making
them even stronger when fighting in the war. Similarly, both Moroccan Crisis’
were large factors that started creating tension amongst countries, including
Britain, France and Germany. This is due to that especially Germany wanted to
avoid French colonization of Morocco, as then Germany would lose a country they
could trade with, which was very important as they were expanding rapidly
during this time. However, throughout the second Moroccan crisis, as France
gained control over Moroccan banks, and therefore their economy, they were then
able to fully imperialize Morocco, making it a French colony. Due to this,
Germany felt very humiliated, as after the Algeciras conference of 1906, they
were forced to stay out of morocco and then lost their battle to the French.
This shows, how only a few years prior to the war, a lot of tension amongst
these countries has built up, as they all wanted to become the most powerful.
Furthermore, Militarism is also another factor that
played a role in the cause of the first world war. For example, between 1910
and 1914, Germany’s Military expenditures increased by 73% and during this time
Germany rapidly became the most powerful military in the world. For example,
this can be seen through Germany's large amounts of railways, which were very
important, as trains were the most efficient forms of transport during this
time. However, Russia had 1 mile of railway for every 100 Germany had, which
already showed a great setback for Russia, as they could not compete with
Germany’s rapid industrialization. Furthermore, another example of this is the
Berlin to Baghdad Railway, which was built in 1903 in an effort to connect
Germany to the Ottoman Empire. This was very beneficial to Germany as this
allowed them to have a direct connection to get oil and transport it directly
back to Germany. Nevertheless, Germany started to grow their Military very
late, so even though in the few years before the war their numbers of economic
and military expansion increased rapidly, other countries, such as Britain were
still able to compete. This indicates how the competitiveness gained through
imperialism and militarism amongst countries created a lot of buildup of
tension and slowly imploded in 1914. Furthermore, the tension created, was also
built upon the increasing military and empire that countries were creating,
allowing them to be more powerful during the war.
When weighing out both perspectives, it can be
concluded that even though to some extent imperialism and militarism were key
factors in the start of WWI, the greatest factor in the escalation of the war
was the complex alliance system. Nevertheless, it can be said, that without
factors, such as nationalism, militarism, imperialism and especially the
assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand the tension prior to the start of WW1
would not have been as strong. However, even though the tension created, lead
to the start of the conflict, without the alliance system, the war would not
have been global. Therefore, it can be said, that the main cause of the
escalation of the first world war was the alliance system.
To What Extent Can it be said that the First World
War was caused by the Alliance System?
The First World War was the most dreadful and
treacherous conflict the world had ever seen when it first broke out, and it
set the scene for a century full of brutal war, constant tensions and horrific
genocides. The main cause of the First World War is a highly debated topic in
history, and historians all differ in their opinions on this subject in some
way. These differences begin with defining when the Great War actually begun,
as, while most historians argue the war started on 18th June 1914,
Christopher Clark argues that Italy begun the First World War in 1911 with the
invasion of Libya leading to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire [1]. While I would not be quick to say that the alliances were the
primary reason for the war breaking out, I do believe that the system of
alliances can be said to be the cause of WWI to a significant extent. This
essay will discuss several of the main causes leading to the war and evaluate
how great their role was in starting the War To End All Wars.
In the
few decades leading up to the war, two main alliances had been established in
Europe. The first of these was the Triple Entente – consisting of Great
Britain, France and Russia, and the other was the Triple Alliance – consisting
of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and later joined by the Ottoman Empire.
The treaties which created these alliances declared that if one country of the
alliance was attacked, the other nations in the alliance would have to provide
military aid to the invaded country. The Triple Entente and Triple Alliance
contained the 7 strongest nations on the planet at the time. On one side you
had the largest and most powerful navy in the world – Great Britain – the
world’s most modern and technologically advanced army – France – and the
largest army in the world in terms of soldiers – Russia. While on the other
side you had a rapidly advancing military coming close to over taking Britain
in naval power and close to overtaking France in army power – Germany – a huge
empire consisting of parts of 13 of today’s European countries –
Austria-Hungary – and an empire which had been the strongest land force on
Earth by a huge margin for hundreds of years, a couple hundred years prior to
the outbreak of WWI – The Ottoman Empire. These two alliance blocks caused a
lot of tension between the nations involved, as both were quite equally matched
in strength and both had imperial aims in the same areas in the world.
The
Dual Alliance of 1894 which saw France and Russia agree to become military
allies was an alliance which was both incredibly surprising and caused tensions
between Germany and France & Russia to escalate. George F. Kennan
believes that the alliance of 1984 was the main cause of the war1. At the time
France was a democratic nation with one of the strongest and modernized armies
in the world. Meanwhile Russia was quite the opposite; an autocratic monarchy
had been in place for the past 300 years and the nation was very backwards as
Russia had struggled to modernize itself as a result of its huge area,
furthermore the society was incredibly corrupt due to the hierarchy. As well as
this alliance being surprising, it was of great geographical importance and
that factor would force Germany to base their military plans in the war on this
very alliance. This factor is the Encirclement of Germany. Germany was
surrounded by France on the west and Russia on the east, and as these countries
were now allies, the Germans would have to fight on two opposite fronts if war
were to break out. Therefore, when the war began, the German Empire used the
Schlieffen Plan. This plan stated that France should be taken quickly in the
first 6 weeks of the war, so that afterwards Germany could focus on the eastern
front. From this evidence it is clear that the Dual Alliance played a major
role in starting WWI, as surrounding Germany at both its border caused tensions
to rise significantly.
The
20th century had seen 2 Balkan wars go by and one could argue that the
conflict between Serbia and Austria Hungary caused by the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand should’ve ended up as nothing more than a third Balkan
war. However due to the Russian-Serbian unofficial alliance and the
Blank-Cheque given to Austria-Hungary by Germany this conflict grew into the
first world war the world had ever seen. Russia had immense political and
religious influence in Serbia and therefore would stand up for the smaller
nation and support if confronted. Russia had already showed its support for
Serbia in the first Balkan wars, and it came to Serbia’s aid when it was issued
an ultimatum by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Meanwhile, Germany had given
Austria-Hungary the blank-cheque which stated that Austria-Hungary would have
the German Empire’s political and military support if they were to declare war
on Serbia. These two events happening parallel to each other brought two of the
world’s greatest powers into a conflict which could’ve ended up just being
another Balkan war, however due to the alliance system being in place Germany
and Russia were dragged into what was to become a massive conflict due to their
ties with other smaller nations. Otto von Bismarck had predicted this event
years prior to it taking place, ‘If there is ever another war in Europe, it
will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans’. As the Balkans had
always been an area of tension and extreme nationalism – as a result of many
different peoples being under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – it
is understandable that he predicted this.
The
system of alliances can actually be compared to the alliances which are in
place in the world today. Organisations such as NATO and CSTO, the many allies
the US have and the unofficial ties/alliances between Russia, China, Iran and
North Korea have shown that today a small event can lead to a world war very
easily. Take for example, when Turkey shot down a Russian bomber near the
Turkish border in 2015. If Russia were to take military action against Turkey,
the US, UK, France, Germany and many other world powers would come to Turkey’s
aid through NATO. The US’s involvement may also cause allies such as Japan and
South Korea to get involved. Meanwhile, due to Russia’s CSTO alliance, many
former Soviet Union states would support Russia in the conflict, while powers
such as China or Iran may also give their support to Russia. This shows how
quickly alliances allow a small spark, such as shooting down a plane or
assassinating one person, to explode into a massive world conflict, even
potentially in our world today.
The
alliance system was very closely tied to other causes such as militarism and
imperialism. I would argue that the alliances were an effect of these two other
factors while also being a cause of militarism and imperialism. During the
1800s and early 1900s, European powers including Great Britain, Germany and
France had been expanding their colonial territories in areas such as Africa
and the Middle East, as well as increasing their spending on military
significantly to have the strongest armies and navies on the continent. This
will be discussed in further detail later, however my point here is that these
rivalries caused each country to try and find ways that they could be step
ahead of the other continuously. One way in which they could do this is
actually by becoming stronger through improving relations with each other and
creating alliances. This would make one nation stronger than their rival,
because they would have the backing of another world power in a case of any
conflict. However, the other end of the argument states that alliances were
also a cause of militarism and imperialism. This is so, because once these European
states had built up their alliances, they were desperate to become the
strongest alliance. To become the strongest alliance, these powers each had to
imperialise more and militarise their armies and navies further. This shows how
alliances actually created a cycle of militarisation and colonisation causing
the alliance system again and vice versa.
From
the mid 19th century till the years leading up to the war, European
powers, Germany particularly, had been raising military spending and increasing
their military might. Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia spent 94
million pounds on militarisation collectively in 1870. This rose to 130 million
pounds in 1880, to 154 million in 1890, and continued to increase until in
1914, when these four main world powers had spent 398 million pounds on
building up their military. France saw an increase in expenditure of 10% from
1910 till 1914, Britain increased spending by 13% in these four years, Russia
saw an increase of a massive 39% during this period, and Germany increased
their military spending by a mindboggling 73% in just 4 years. Germany’s
militarisation saw tensions increase greatly across Europe and made countries
such as Britain feel threatened. The British had ruled the seas since as far
back as anyone could remember back then, therefore when Germany began improving
their navy at such a fast rate in the early 1900s, Britain felt that their
naval supremacy was being threatened. The naval arms race between these two
powers was one of the main causes of the war, as each state was constantly
trying to build more battleships and submarines to have the stronger navy,
which kept a constant rivalry between these nations. This rivalry was one of
the biggest causes of bringing on the war in my opinion, therefore I very much
agree with A.J.P. Taylor when he says ‘The German bid for continental supremacy
was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War’1.
The
arms race between the British and German Empire in the early 1900s can be
compared to the development of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal in defiance of
U.S. sanctions in the past years. The DPRK argue that they have to build a
strong military force and nuclear arsenal with atomic bombs capable of reaching
U.S. mainland because they are an isolated country and could otherwise do very
little to defend against an American offensive. This situation could be
compared to Germany in the late 19th century, as the German Empire had
only became an actual state in 1971. Therefore, Germany may also have felt
threatened by the European countries surrounding it which had been immensely
powerful for hundreds of years already. For this reason, Germany would’ve felt
the need to develop and increase its military strength to establish itself as a
world power between her fellow neighbours and to have the ability to fend off
an attack launched by another nearby state. This is how the Germany’s
militarisation prior to WWI and North Korea’s development of atomic bombs today
are were both for similar reasons.
One
lesser known cause of the Frist World War is the industrialization of the
Russian Empire. For much of the 1800s, Russia had been a very backwards
country, as the society and economy of the Empire was more comparable to a
European country of the 1600s rather than the 1800s. Countries such as France
and Britain had become much more modernised industrially and also had more
democratic political systems. There was very little technical innovation in
Russia and the railway system was insufficient for such a large country. In the
1880s, Sergei Witte came to power in the Russian government and started
infrastructure programs to build new railways, telegraph lines, and electrical
plants. By 1900 Russia was the world’s fourth largest source of steel and the second
largest source of petroleum. The money made through foreign investment was
reinjected into the economy by starting new projects allowing for the
construction of mines, dams and factories in other areas[2]. After lagging so far
behind other European powers for such a long period of time, this sudden rapid
industrialization came as quite a shock to the rest of Europe. Countries such
as Germany and Austria-Hungary were forced to keep an eye on the Empire in case
its economy became too strong and would overtake other nations in military
power. This obviously added to the tensions in Europe at the beginning of the
20th century.
Another
cause of the Great War was imperialism. The main world powers all had imperial
ambitions across the globe and already controlled large parts of Africa and
Asia, however I will be focusing on two particular events in this section,
these events being the Moroccan Crises. As Germany was a relatively new country
in Europe, it did not control many territories abroad. Otto von Bismarck
believed that this was not a problem and that the new German Empire should
focus on domestic issues. However, when Wilhelm II came to power, he fired Von
Bismarck and had a very different view on German imperialist intentions. ‘A
place in the sun’ became a German need, as Robert Wohl puts it1.
The
First Moroccan Crisis took place between 1905 and 1906. Morocco was part of the
Ottoman Empire, but had not been colonised, so it was effectively independent.
Meanwhile France had gained control of the vast majority of West Africa and
therefore also had interests in taking Morocco. France moved their army in
Africa to the Moroccan border and demanded control of the Morocco’s armed
forces. Kaiser Wilhelm visited Morocco and gave the country his support,
telling the people that Morocco will remain ‘free and independent’. Following
these events, tensions between the French Third Republic and the German Empire
rose. Both threatened each other with war, and France wanted to back down,
however Great Britain told the French that they have their support and should
not stand down. Afterwards, Russia also supported France in the squabble and
Germany agreed to stay away from Morocco to avoid further consequences. As a
result of this the French and British became frightened by Germany’s aggression
and confidence in voicing their opinion in international issues, while Germany
was angry as they felt that all of the other great powers were against them.
The
roots of the Second Moroccan Crisis (also known as the Agadir Crisis) are in an
uprising against the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in 1911. France saw this as
an excuse to invade and conquer the country, and pursued this by sending naval
forces to the army units in the region. This angered Germany greatly, and they
decided to send naval forces of their own in opposition to the French
colonisation. Once again Britain came to France’s aid through the Entente
Cordiale and the German’s were forced to pull out once more. The German Empire
and the French Third Republic signed the Treaty of Berlin, which declared that
Morocco shall become a French colony, while Germany would receive a very small
territory within the country. This angered Germany immensely and the Kaiser
insisted that he will not back down again.
It
is evident from these two crises that imperialism played a very significant
role in raising tensions between Germany and the Entente Cordiale in the years
prior to the war and therefore it was a major cause of the war. The fact that
these disputes caused Germany and France to threaten to declare war on one
another and made one so angry and frustrated with the other was a clear indication,
on hindsight, that a war would break out soon between these great powers.
One
of the most well-known theses arguing whom is to blame for the First World War
is the Fischer Thesis. Fritz Fischer was a former Nazi and historian who
believed the sole cause of WW1 was German imperialism. He argued that Germany’s
aggressive expansionism and ambitions to take large areas towards the west
after defeating Russia in a war was the only cause of the war[3].
While I do believe that Germany’s ‘grab for world power’ (as Fischer put it)
was a very significant cause of the war, I disagree with the opinion of it
being the sole reason. There were many other causes discussed in this essay
such as the alliance system and militarisation of other nations which played
roughly an equal role in causing the war. While Germany’s rapid rise to power
did play a very large role in bringing on the war, I find it unfair to put the full
blame on Germany for the WWI.
In
conclusion, this essay shows however significant a role the alliance system
played in causing the Great War, it was most definitely not the only factor
leading to the conflict. I find it difficult to judge to what extent the
alliances caused the war, however I do believe that one can draw the conclusion
that the First World war was inevitable from this discussion of causes. Emil
Ludwig said ‘A peaceable, industrious, sensible mass of 500 million European
people, was hounded by a few dozen incapable leaders, by falsified documents,
lying stories of threats, and chauvinistic catchwords, into a war which in no
way was destined or inevitable’ and Richard
Holbrooke thinks alike saying that ‘WW1 was not inevitable’1 for similar
reasons. I strongly oppose the opinions of these two historians, as I believe
the tensions created in Europe by the rise of Germany militarily and colonially,
the industrialisation of Russia and the suspense which the Alliance system
added to these factors made a war near the beginning of the 20th century
completely unavoidable. The alliance system was a major cause of the war,
especially considering the cycle of militarism, imperialism and added alliances
it created. On the other hand, I strongly believe that the alliances alone
would never have started a war in Europe, as it did not create as much tension
or cause as much anger, frustration and anxiety between countries as
militarisation and imperialism did. In my opinion, The German Empire’s increase
in military power and colonial control over the world was the most significant
cause of the war and this factor alone made war inevitable. This situation was
very comparable to the war between Athens and Sparta; ‘What made the war
inevitable was the growth in Athenian power and the fear that this caused in
Sparta’ (Thucydides)1. However, I believe the alliances were the second largest
factor in bringing on the war due to all of the added tension it brought to
Europe, and therefore the alliance system did cause the outbreak of
The War To End All Wars to a very significant extent.
IBDP History Past Paper Question
Was the First World War caused by the alliance
system?
If one was to take this
question to heart, they’d very likely imagine the alliances of the early
twentieth century as the equivalent of omnipotent schoolchildren picking
football teams. Placing the weight of the Great War on the shoulders of the
so-called alliance ‘system’ is absurd; the system was made up of multiple
individual and separate treaties, (1) some of which almost a century
old by the war’s beginning. (1) Some of these treaties were naturally
more or less dangerous than others. The alliances are too complex for a black
and white answer. The system as a whole likely wouldn’t have caused
the eventual war, despite its oddities. But alas, in pattern that would repeat
itself a few times over the next 100 years or so, Russia ruined everything. In
this particular instance, it did so by throwing money and military might behind
the Kingdom of Serbia, in what might have been the most dangerous military
alliance in European history.
For one to understand the
Russo-Serbian dilemma, one has to start by understanding exactly the Serbian
government, why it was a disaster, and why the Russian government didn’t stand
against it. To begin, the Serbs were corrupt. A corrupt government
or military official is by no means a rarity, no matter which country you look
to. A government or military official working with terrorists is a peculiarity
usually isolated to a particular part of the modern globe. But a terrorist
actively serving as an official, and not only that, one allied with similarly
terroristic officials within the upper echelons of the country’s military,
that’s something special. Early twentieth-century Serbia was more than a safe
haven for terrorism, it was an active breeding ground. The current government,
instated following the butchering of the royal family in 1903, (2) had a
military infested inside and out (3) with members of the Black Hand. This
particularly nefarious group found its leader in Dragutin Dimitrijevic, a
Serbian colonel and a military hero. (4) The Black Hand was a terrorist
organization founded on the principles of Pan-Slavism, an ethno-national
movement focused on uniting the Slavic Peoples under one banner. Government
officials of Serbia often had no choice but to let these policies influence
law, the officials and lawmakers being repeatedly harassed and threatened by
Serbian military officials working directly for the Black Hand. (5) Serbia was
slowly but surely falling under the group’s influence.
Yet, through all this, Russia
did nothing to separate herself from a country that was transforming into a
nation run by terrorists. Russia stayed friendly, unlike Britain, who, as F.R.
Bridge points out, separated all diplomatic ties with Serbia in 1903, (6) Staying
allies is a very risky move on Russia’s part, and it doesn’t seem to make a lot
of sense: The Serbs are becoming increasingly populistic, terror-driven, and
dangerous to their neighbors. Why would Russia be so stupid as to risk war and
to back Serbia? Well, there are several reasons. Serbia had crowned a new king
after the murder of the previous royal family in 1903. (7) This king,
Peter the First, was a Pan-Slavic idealist and a supporter of Russia,
visiting St. Petersburg several times over the course of his reign. (8) In
addition, Russia’s own problems were intensifying. In 1904, not only were
Russians dying abroad in the war against Japan, they were starving at home. The
Russian proletariat were being overworked and underfed, and those chickens were
imminently coming home to roost. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they had
history. the Russians and the Serbs had been close allies since the seventeenth
and nineteenth centuries, when Russia had backed Serbian rebels in not one, but
two wars of independence against the Ottomans. The first of these involved
going against Napoleon, a task so dangerous that Leopold von Ranke himself called
the Russian endeavor “a war more perilous than any in which she had ever been
engaged.” (9) So, how can Russia’s backing of Serbia be blamed for
starting the war? Russia had stuck with the Serbs for years: holding their
ground against aggressors once again shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise.
Yet, Russia’s motivations for
standing behind Serbia were likely far from pacifistic. It’s very possible that
the Russians were trying to begin, enter, and control a third Balkan war, using
it to gain more power in the region. Ever since the Bosnian crisis of 1908,
relations between the Balkan states and their neighbor-state, Austria-Hungary,
had been strained to say the least, (10) and while Austria might have
not participated in the Balkan Wars, the tension wasn’t any less real. Russia
probably couldn’t predict the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but they might’ve
guessed that a terror state on the border of an expanding empire might’ve led
to an Austrian-Balkan conflict that they could capitalize on. The results they
were imagining might have been additional treaties with Montenegro, regarding
some new warm-water ports; it might have been a Pan-Slavic nation, similar to
what would become Yugoslavia; very likely, it was the collapse of
Austria-Hungary and an emphatic Russian dominance in the Balkans. Whatever
Russia might have been plotting, it failed to come to fruition.
In 1914, following
Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against the Kingdom of Serbia, it became
clear that Russia wasn’t going to get the conflict it might have wanted.
Germany was going to back Austria-Hungary. It’s widely believed that Russia and
Germany weren’t trying to go to war. The most common evidence people point to
here would be the last-minute telegrams between the respective leaders of
Germany and Russia, known as “the Willy-Nicky Telegrams,” (11) in
which Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II, in a frantic attempt to stop a
European war from happening, wrote each other on the eve of the conflict,
speaking of peaceful resolution, and signing with childhood nicknames. It
didn’t work: what may have been a regional war to the benefit of Russia swiftly
turned into a world war that brought death by the droves.
The Great War, despite its
status of being actively pinned on Germany, is a war that deserves to be placed
at Russia’s feet. Russia’s connection with Serbia (and possible ulterior
motives) did nothing but jeopardize the fragile peace that was holding the
Balkans together, and ultimately, endanger the world populace. Henry Kissinger
had it right when he said that the countries were trapped in a “doomsday
machine,” (12) but the reasons behind it might have been more
different than Kissinger could have imagined.
History Paper 2 – Mock Essay #1
Treacherous deals and secret agreements, as
well as provoking accords and deceiving messages are thought of when the
alliance system of the late 19th to early 20th century are mentioned.
It is a popular revisionist belief that the Great War was caused almost
exclusively by these alliances. Sydney Bradshaw Fay himself, one of the most
famous revisionist historians of all time argues that “[World War One] came
[from the] system of alliances, which was the curse of modern times.”
Nevertheless, other historians such as A.J.P. Taylor argue that “no matter what
political reasons are given for the war, the underlying reason is always economic.”
This puts the reasons for the outbreak of the first world war into question and
makes one wonder, to what extent can it be said that the First World War
was caused by the alliance system?
The easiest way to deal with the cause of
the war, is to say that it indeed caused by the alliance system. First, in 1872
the Dreikaiserbund was formed commonly referred to as the League of the Three
Emperors. This alliance consisted of German, Russia and Austro-Hungary. This
was followed by the Dual Alliance in 1879, which was a pact between Germany and
Austro-Hungary, ensuring mutual protection in the event of war with Russia.
Already, one can see that there were tensions, as after seven years of being in
an alliance, Germany and Austro-Hungary double cross Russia, in assuring each
other of safety against them. This would not make any sense if the alliance
system was stable, because allied nations are supposed to protect each other
anyways and not go to war with them. The Dual Alliance was then joined by Italy
to create the Triple Alliance in 1882. Bismark, the then chancellor of Germany,
claimed that all of these treaties were formed to strengthen Germany’s
diplomatic position, but of course, no nation believed that Germans did not
want to use these alliances for an alternative reason i.e. to expand their
empire. Because of the competition between Austro-Hungary and Russia over the
Balkans, the Dreikaiserbund collapsed in 1887 and the Reinsurance treaty was
created, which ensured neutrality of one another if it ever came to war between
either of them and a great power. However, because the German’s thought that
this was an unnecessary pact because of the ideological differences between
France and Russia, they lifted this agreement in 1890. Hence the creation of
the Franco-Russian alliance in 1894. This came as a surprise to everyone,
because the French and Russian governments and ideologies could not be more
juxtaposed. Above all, the French and Russians claimed that this alliance had
nothing to do with the Germans, even though it was never questioned. Therefore,
the Germans obviously felt as though their newly formed alliance did have
everything to do with them. In 1907, the final crucial event happened, which
joined the Franco-Russian alliance to Great Britain, forming the Triple
entente. As the major powers of were now all interconnected, Sydney Bradshaw
Fey said that “the system made it inevitable that if war did come, it would
involve all the Great Powers of Europe.” Also, everybody knows that as
soon as England is involved in the war, it is a world war, because it involves
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on. Thus, when the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand occurred in 1914, Germany had to join their ally Austria-Hungary in
the war against the Balkans and Russians “the mother of all Slavs” of course
had to protect them, which then lead to the rest of the Triple entente getting
involved. Hence, the alliances caused the Great War.
Nevertheless, one could say that the war
did not occur because of the alliance system at all. This is so because the
alliance system is completely misleading. This is so because Britain had in
fact no formal alliance with France at all, and did not like the Russians
either. In fact, the United States of America refused to be called allies of
these countries, because they were against everything that the Americans
believed in. In the triple alliance, Italy will actually go on to fight against
the other members of its alliance. Bismark clearly said that “all treaties
between states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle
for existence.” Therefore, when push comes to shove, the none of the members of
the alliances will actually protect or defend each other, hence rendering the
alliance system useless and basically non-existent. After all, most treaties
and agreements were secret, and the countries’ governments often did not even
know they had them. This is where it is just to say that the people in power in
WW1 were all “sleepwalkers” as Christopher Clark suggested. (Clark,
Christopher)
Opposing to both of these theories is that
of the economic reasons the war was caused by. These problems were mainly cause
by Germany’s plans to create the Berlin to Baghdad railway. Because Germany was
already a growing economic power, ranking in first place for the amount of
steel output and in second place behind Britain for their coal production as
well as having the schools teach science and technology in schools, its opponents
were getting more and more intimidated. Especially because they were using
these recourses for army and naval expansion, which also rose from being sixth
to second largest in the world. When Germany announced that they were working
on a railway from Berlin to Baghdad, the British Empire could not take it
anymore. This was so because there were oil reserves in the Ottoman Empire,
which if Germany got access to them, this would be a huge threat to the Royal
Navy, as both theirs and the German Navy were trying to switch from coal to oil
fueling. Hence, the first bomb of the great war was sent from the British
Empire to Iraq to fight the Germans. (Joll, James) (A.J.P Taylor)
Overall one can see that the alliance
system is clearly overrated in terms of it being the cause of the first world
war. This is so because it had no direct effect on the war, as most of the
treaties were not binding, or simply non-existent. The economic reasons for the
war make much more sense and are therefore more likely to be the real reason
for the outbreak of the war. Hence, in answer to the question, the alliance
system did not cause the war, economic conflicts and fear of German military
expansion did.
To
What Extent Can it be Said that the First World War was caused by the Alliance
System?
"The first World War was a tragic and
unnecessary conflict. Unnecessary because the train of events that led to its
outbreak might have been broken at any point during the five weeks of crisis
that preceded the first clash of arms, had prudence or common goodwill found a
voice;...”
are the first words in Sir John Keegan’s
book “World War One”. These words seems to summarize the events leading up to
the outbreak and possible prevention of the worst war seen since, the then
dubbed Great War.
But how much of these unnecessary and
tragic events can really be traced back to the alliance system of 1914, that
many blame for the outbreak of the war?
This essay will argue that
although the alliance system made a localized conflict spread, it was more a
symptom rather than a cause of the outbreak of the first world war.
On the 4th of August 1914, Great Britain
the superpower controlling one fifth of the world declared war on Germany
turning the what was then to be believed as a third Balkan War into the first
World War which ended up with over 41 Million People sacrificing their life for
what Sir John Keegan says a “tragic and unnecessary conflict”.
One can see why many are of the opinion
that the alliance system was a major trigger for the outbreak of the First
World War as it caused a localized conflict to spread all over the
world by the end of it in 1918 reaching from Berlin to China and the
United States as Bernadotte Schmitt says; “the alliances which had originally
served the cause of peace, when put to the final test, almost mechanically
operated to convert a local quarrel into a general war”
The alliance of the time can be traced back
to Otto von Bismarck's rule and his system of alliances. In his plan to protect
Germany and to dominate European politics but once Wilhelm II Kaiser of Germany
dropped the pilot in 1890, this system collapsed giving way to the
polarized alliance system of 1914 with two hostile alliance networks
.
On one side the Triple alliance between
Germany, Austria- Hungary and on paper Italy which was signed on the 20th of
May 1882 and renewed periodically.
Germany and Austria- Hungary had always
been close since 1879 where the Dual alliance was signed in vienna each
pledging support in the event that one was to be invaded by Russia and
guaranteed neutrality should one be invaded by another major European power.
Italy sought their support against France
shortly after losing North African ambitions to the French but were quite
ambiguous also signing secret treaties with France and reneged on their
commitment once the war broke out 1914.
Another important treaty was signed June
1887 called the reinsurance treaty which assured Russia and Germany's neutrality
in the case of a third-party invasion which was created by Bismarck to prevent
Russia forming an alliance with France in the face of the heightening tensions
between Austria Hungary and Russia in the Balkans. The neutrality was to remain
unless Russia attacked Austria Hungary or Germany France. This treaty however
expired in 1890 when Bismarck was dropped by Wilhelm II which refused to renew
the treaty with Russia. This and the triple alliance with Italy left Russia
vulnerable and France had been isolated since their defeat in 1871 in the
Franco-Prussian war. To the surprise of all due to their juxtaposed beliefs and
values from a liberal to tsarist, France and Russia signed the Dual alliance
January, 1894 a political and military pact that developed from friendly
contacts in 1891 to a secret treaty in 1894 which stipulated that it should
stay in place for as long as the triple alliance existed and that if one of the
countries of the triple alliance attacked France or Russia, its ally would
attack the aggressor in question and if one of the triple
alliance countries would mobilize its army so would Russia and
France. This was due to the support sought against Germany is France’s case and
Austria Hungary in Russia’s case. This upset the system of alliances that had
been established by Bismarck to protect Germany against such a potential
“two-front” threat. Through this alignment Russia also came into Britain's
sphere of influence and after signing signing the Entente Cordiale, designed to
settle Anglo-French colonial differences in 1904 Britain also signed
the Anglo-Russian convention 1907. These were the basis of alliances
that caused the war to break out.
When Franz Ferdinand heir to the throne of
Austria- Hungary was assassinated by Serbian terrorist, it sparked a chain
reaction of alliances which drew the majority of Europe and then later the
world into what would otherwise have been an internal war for the Austro
Hungarian Empire.
Although the tensions in Europe still were
maintained low even after the assassination as the news could be found on page
26 in the times in Britain, the situation escalated when Russia partially
mobilized its troops July 29th 1914 after Austria Hungary was assured of
Germany's support through the blank check and gave Serbia an ultimatum which
they refused due to article six which caused them to shell Serbian capital
Belgrade on the 28th of July 1914. Russia felt obligated to step in
although they do not have an official alliance or treaty with Serbia but sees
themselves obligated as the protector of all Slavs as Tsar Nicholas writes
Kaiser Wilhelm II: “An unjust war has been declared on a weak country. The
anger in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I
shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take
extreme measures which will lead to war. To try and avoid such a
calamity as a European war I beg you in the name of our old friendship to do
what you can to stop your allies from going too far. Nicky” At first,
Tsar Nicholas hoped to mobilize only against Austria-Hungary, but -when his
generals told him that this was impossible - he was forced to fully mobilize
against Germany as well as Austria-Hungary on the 31st of July 1914. Germany
thus had no choice but to declare war on Russia as they could not let
themselves defenseless in front of the biggest country in the world right on
their door step. Once Germany declared war on Russia, France mobilizes due to
their alliance with Russia and August 3, 1914, Germany declares war on France,
and invades neutral Belgium. Britain then sends an ultimatum, rejected by the
Germans, to withdraw from Belgium. Which causes Britain to declare war August
4, 1914, the declaration is binding on all Dominions within the British Empire
including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa resulting in a
war expanding all over the world.
Therefore one can see how the alliance
system was a major cause for the outbreak of war as it caused a ripple effect
of all European countries to join a what was to be a local Balkan conflict.
However one could see that the
alliance system might have made a localized conflict to spread, in the end the
alliance system was more a symptom rather than a cause. The alliance system was
a result of the fear unrest distrust and ambition of the leading powers in the
world.
Fear of Germany by Britain, a young country
which was threatening Britain's power as the superpower of the world and had to
be in Britain's opinion taken down. What should have been a natural alliance
between Germany and Britain due to their related monarchs as well as similar
beliefs. contrasting, France and Britain had been in conflict for decades which
created confusion even at the time as to why Britain would ally with France
instead of Germany. But they didn’t due to their already existing
tensions from the arms race which started 1891 and because Britain viewed
Germany as a more of threat to the European balance of power than Britain's
traditional enemy, France.
Furthermore, none of Britain's treaties
with France nor Russia explicitly guaranteed that Britain would ally with the
countries in the event of a European war.
That is why although Britain cause for
entering the war was the neutrality agreement of Belgium in 1839 which was
broken when Germany invaded Belgium according to the Schlieffen plan, even the
Imperial Chancellor expressed with considerable irritation his inability to
understand the attitude of England and expressed his view: “Why should you make
war upon us for a scrap of paper?”. Britain was known for not keeping their
word in agreements so why did they choose the Belgian neutrality to honor their
word? Was it more an excuse to demonstrate their superiority in front of
Germany after being threatened by them since 1891? The
Historian Niall Ferguson also states that Britain could have lived with a
German victory in the first world war, and should have stayed out of the
conflict in 1914 who described the intervention as "the biggest error in
modern history". He continues to say "Creating an army more or less
from scratch and then sending it into combat against the Germans was a recipe
for disastrous losses. And if one asks whether this was the best way for
Britain to deal with the challenge posed by imperial Germany, my answer is no.”
which exemplifies that Britain got into the war rashly and without any
preparation.
There was also fear of the Triple alliance
which was made as an attempt to isolate France and leave it defenseless and
unable to fend off all three countries. This however, led the other Great
Powers feeling threatened about the strength of the Triple Alliance. So as a
result the triple entente was signed 15 years later to counteract the threat
that the Triple alliance created.
Distrust because of the lack of
transparency within nations as well as internationally.
The ambition of countries was also a great
factor which caused the alliance system to escalate to extend their sphere of
influence such as Austria Hungary in the Balkans and France taking back Alsace
Lorraine.
In conclusion what the alliance system did
is transform from balanced forces which maintained a delicate equilibrium in
1887 to one polarized by hostile alliance networks by 1914. Through the
alliance system a domino effect was created which heightened the emotions and
tension already existing in Europe and ultimately the world. The
alliance system combined with other factors such as militarism, nationalism,
Imperialism and the last straw the assassination of the Archduke Franz
Ferdinand all contributed to the outbreak of the war in codependent measures as
without any of them the war might have not broken out. Although the alliance
system did play a major role in the outbreak as it caused a localized conflict
to spread, it was only a symptom which was caused by the other factors which
ultimately resulted in the outbreak of the first world war. Finally
revisiting the starting quote of this essay I must disagree with Sir John
Keegan, that the first world war was an “unnecessary” event as one might argue
that defending once values and beliefs for the greater good and honoring
alliances between countries is a good enough reason for a country to sacrifice
its people because without our beliefs and values, what is the meaning of
anything?
“You have to know the past to understand
the present” – Carl Sagan
This essay will explore the extent to which
the alliance system caused the first world war by taking into consideration
different scopes of time. Viewing only time span of the war or a limited time
prior will reveal that the alliance system was used as the means to start war
in 1914 or that it was created as the means to start war. However, this essay
will argue that if history must be considered to understand what is happening
in the present then coincidentally to understand what has happened in a past
event one must consider what happened even earlier in history, therefore the
time before the war must be acknowledged to understand the role of the alliance
system in the First world war.
The First world war cannot be blamed solely
on the alliances, however they did play a significant role in the amplification
of a small conflict, as well as the rapid dissemination of what could have
remained a local dispute. When regarding the onset of the Great war in 1914 by
the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on Serbia’s National
day in Sarajevo it is evident that only two countries were directly involved:
Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Before any action was taken between the two
countries, Austria’s Emperor Franz Joseph however conferred with their ally
Germany to ensure they had their support in case of war. Once the “Blank
Cheque” from Germany assuring this was issued, Austria sent Serbia the
Ultimatum. The ultimatum was however essentially obsolete since the support of
Germany meant that Austria would go to war with Serbia no matter their
response. The fact that Serbia accepted all except one minor article of
Austria’s terms, and Austria-Hungary still declared war on Serbia on July 28th confirms
Austria’s and furthermore Germany’s belligerent mentality. Overall this series
of events convey that if the alliance with Germany had not existed then the
conflict between Austria and Serbia would not have been able to mature into
such a serious combat and actual war. Furthermore, the rapid spread of the war
can also be traced back to the alliances between the central powers and allies.
This is because the agreements, obligations and bonds between the powers
created a situation similar to a game of dominoes where one power after the
other was hit over by the previous one and toppled into war. The most palpable
chain of dominoes can be observed from June 28th to August 4th. This
sequence begins with the declaration of War on Serbia by Austria-Hungary. As
Russia was an ally to Serbia they partially mobilized their troops on July 29th and
became fully mobilized by the 30th of July which called Germany to action
as they were allied to Austria-Hungary since the dual alliance signed in
October 1879. Further, due to the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894 the
involvement of Russia in the conflicts alerted France. As Germany recognized
the bonds they realized war with France would be inevitable she promptly
declared war on France on August 3rd. Finally, Britain joined the war on the 4th of
August as a result of Germany discrediting the Treaty of London from 1939 which
guaranteed Belgium neutrality. From the given chain of events one can observe
that the action taken by the powers was largely a result of alliances and
treaties which committed each country to support or defend a given party. From
this one might conclude that without the alliances the conflict would not have
advanced so quickly or as far, assigning the alliances a catalytic role in the
war. On the other hand, however one can contend this argument as naïve since
there was a general desire for war as stated by A.J.P. Taylor himself who
described that “the people of Europe leapt willingly into war.” Hence, the
involvement in the war was not actually due to the alliances but rather the
alliances were a mere pretense for the powers to be able to realize their
desire for war.
Before one can however seriously interpret
the role of the alliances in the “Great War” it is important to not only view
the established alliances but to consider their origin. When alliances are made
the powers assume there will be war or conflict and then negotiate on how in
these hypothetical situations they would support each other. The main reason
for an alliance being that war is impending. Ergo, the creation of alliances
indicates that the powers are assuming war and planning for it, from which one
could conclude that the treaties and agreements written were consequently the
script for a war. Further, if we consider the scope of the agreements made
before 1914 which reached from Japan to France, it becomes evident that the
nations were not creating models for isolated conflicts but a module for a
“world” war. Which consequently, reveals that WW1 was a series of preprogrammed
events, as through the complex structure of the alliance system any situation
had preset measures that led directly to further presets involving further
nations. Overall, this reveals that the alliances were not simply used as a
pretext in 1914 to initiate the world war, but even more cunningly the creation
of the alliance system throughout the 19th and 20th century disguised
the scheming of World War 1. The deceitful image of the alliances that was
portrayed at the time was that the alliances ensured protection and security to
the nation and its people. This can be seen in the Franco-Russian “Dual
Alliance” which states that in the case of a German attack on France; Russia
would supply 700-800,000 men to France to support them. As A.J.P. Taylor stated
“In every country, the people imagined that they were being called to a
defensive war” As defense seems to be anyone’s right this quote shows that the
alliances lured people into thinking that war was the correct thing to pursue
as it was for justified purposes. However, while the intentions of defense and
support may seem innocent in terms of military action defense and offense are
equally atrocious and a part of war. This reality was however not recognized at
the time and therefore nations were able to manifest the promise of war in the
name of peace and justice. Furthermore, although the alliances addressed
hypothetical issues in the future they did have an immediate effect, as they
posed a threat to those not included. The Entente cordiale for example which
was merely a “warm understanding” and had no military associations caused
Germany to feel encircled and intimidated. A few years earlier in 1890 when
Bismarck refused the renewal of an alliance even the non-existence of a treaty
between Russia and Germany worried Russia and prompted them to seek new allies.
One can see that because the alliances were directly correlated to war, as
Thomas Greenwood said “The alliances, which had originally been designed for
protection, aroused national fear.” In this quote Greenwood expresses that due
to the alliances war loomed over everyone’s head and instilled fear. Shows that
DIET. This clearly illustrates that while nations were creating alliances for
the purpose of ensuring safety they were ironically also ensuring the war itself.
Although the purpose of something by
definition is the reason why it exists, with the purpose at hand we must still
delve further to reveal the reason of why the alliance system exists. By
viewing the relationships between nations and moreover what induced these we
can see that the alliances formed before WW1 were the results of previous
circumstances. For example, the alliance between Britain and Japan was an
outcome of a conflict a few years prior to the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05.
In the late 19th century Japan started modernizing their army and
therefore adapted expansionist policies during which Britain made the effort to
support them. Japan started realizing their expansion by taking over parts of
Korea, Taiwan and China including the Liaodong Peninsula. This alerted the
European powers and caused the triple intervention by Russia, France and
Germany whom refused to accept Japan’s actions. Britain however remained
neutral which in addition to their aid in the Boxer Rebellion crisis improved relations
between her and Japan, and led to their alliance in 1902. From this example we
can observe that an alliance was created based on previous positive
interaction. Furthermore, from 1898-1913 the Anglo-German Naval Race took its
course. The Naval race started with Kaiser Wilhelm wanting to carry out his
“Weltpolitik” which called for a larger fleet. This caused Britain to feel
challenged by Germany and so they also started increasing their production. In
1909-10 the nations negotiated on controlling the arms race however no
agreements could be found so the relations were damaged. Between Germany and
Britain one can see that due to the long-term rivalry and competition as well
as the failed negotiations the two countries were not on good terms. It is also
evident that Britain and Germany were not allies during WW1. This example
illustrates a situation in which due to early conflicts an alliance was not
created but rather the countries were forced to opposing sides. Finally, during
the first Moroccan crisis in 1905-06 Kaiser Wilhelm visited Tangier to confer
with the Sultan in spite of provoking France and testing the new Dual Alliance
between Britain and France. The crisis was resolved in the Algeciras conference
in which France was able to gain support by the majority of powers including
Russia, Britain, U.S. and Italy. The effect of the Tangier crisis are that it
worsened the relationship between France and Germany which put them on opposing
sides of the war and on the other hand it further strengthened the bond between
Britain and France which lead to the triple entente - one of the most important
alliances of the first world war. In conclusion when considering the reasons
for the alliances one might discover that the alliance system of WW1 was the
result of the conflicts and circumstances during roughly the 100 years prior to
the war as they shaped the relations between the nations. Moreover, the system
of alliances was a reflection of the wars, geography, imperialism, leaders,
fear as well as desire for war that constituted the 19th and early 20th century
up to the first world war. This idea makes the alliance system itself redundant
since it was merely the pronouncement of a structure that was already in place
by physically drawing the lines between nations.
The role of the alliance system can be as
well as it’s subsistence offers many different interpretations depending on how
one views the war. By taking previous conflicts out of the equation and
considering the war as an independent event one can see that the alliances were
a catalyst in the war causing it to spread and grow more rapidly. However, if
the time prior to the war in which alliances were created is taken into
consideration it shows that the alliances were made to ensure and plan war.
Through these two perspectives the alliance system was to a large extent the
cause for the war. However, if one acknowledges the entirety of the war, by
regarding the creation of the alliances and even before that the reason why the
alliances were created it becomes evident that the alliance system has no true
significance or worth. This is because WW1 known by many as the “War to end all
War” was as the name suggests based on prior “wars” and circumstances which
created a vast structure of good and bad relationships. Thus, the alliances
were solely a proclamation of those structures that were already in place. When
evaluating the extent to which the alliances caused the war, one can therefore
only really evaluate the impact the pronouncement of the already existing
relationships had. In conclusion, analysing the extent to which the alliances
caused the first world war, in fact means that one is looking at how the events
leading up to the first world war such as wars and imperialism caused the war
and that would be a whole other essay.
-->
To What Extent Can it be Said that the
First World War was Caused by the Alliance System?
The alliance system was one of the major
causes of the First World War but not the only one.The war started as the third
Balkan war between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia. It then escalated
into a World War which was fought in Europe. The war could have been stopped at
anytime by one of the Central Powers or Allies. John Keegan himself argues
that, “The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary event.”
The alliance system had turned the next
Balkan war into a war in Europe between the powerhouses, Russia, Germany, and
France. On July 28 1914 the Austro-Hungarian Empire had declared war on Serbia
as a result of the Black Hand, a Serbian terrorist group which
assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Since Austro-Hungary and
Germany were allies, Germany had come to aid Austria in the war against Serbia.
France got involved in this conflict due to Russia supporting Serbia. France was
Russia’s ally in case of Russia being at war. This led Germany having to
declare war on both Russia and France. Therefore the alliance system has
started the First World War.
On the other hand, the alliance system does
not explain why England has joined the war. Germany was building a railway from
Berlin to Baghdad, which was a threat to England. It was a threat because
England's battleships are with oil, which comes from its colonies in Iraq. If
Germany were to complete the railway, England will not have the resources it
requires for its navy to function. England could not allow the Germans to build
this railway and let them become more powerful. Now that England has joined the
war in Europe, it had turned the war into a world war with its colonies,
reaching from Asia to Africa and North America. Thus they got involved in the
war and took side of France and Russia.
Russia has joined the war to show their
dominance and strength. After Russia was the first country to lose against an
Asian country, Japan in 1905, they wanted to regain their respect by supporting
Serbia, a fellow Slav nation, against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In the
second Balkan War in 1913 Russia did not help any of the Slav nations, which
brings the question why did they support Serbia in 1914? After Russia lost in
1905, Russia wanted to show their presence in Europe by supporting Serbia in
the war against the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
In conclusion it can be said that the
alliance system together with other factors contributed to the outbreak of the
First World War. The alliance system alone cannot be blamed for the war. If it
were not for England to join the war it would not have been a world war. As
well as Russia not being forced the support Serbia and thus bringing France
into the conflict.
To What Extent Can it be Said that the
First World War was Caused by the Alliance System?
Over the years, what can be considered the
principal cause for the First World War has been the subject of extensive
debate. This is not surprising; not only was this conflict the first of its
kind as the first war to span across so many different fronts and involve so
many countries, but it also arguably laid most if not all of the groundwork for
the next and only other conflict humanity has deemed worthy of the title ‘world
war’ thus far. Additionally, a very significant portion of this ‘groundwork’
consisted of the assignation of blame, forcing one country to carry the burden
of all the lives the Great War cost the world on the backs of its citizens,
which naturally makes understanding the complexity of the situation all the
more important. Many credit the alliances countries made with each other as the
main reason war broke out, particularly at the grand scale that it did. This
refers specifically to the Triple Alliance (composed of Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the Triple Entente (composed of Britain, France
and Russia). This essay will explore the role of these alliances between the
European powers in causing the war to break out, examining both supporting and
contradicting perspectives on the issue.
It can be argued that the alliances formed
between the European powers were one of the war’s most significant contributing
factors. Germany’s impromptu gesture of support for their ally
Austria-Hungary’s position, the so-called ‘blank check’ that was interpreted by
Austro-Hungarian officials as a promise for unconditional support and official
encouragement to go to war against Serbia, is often cited as the reason
Germany’s to blame for the escalation of this conflict. Because Austria-Hungary
viewed the ‘blank check’ as an official statement that their ally’s leaders had
reached a consensus on, the former moved forward confident that they had solid
backing, sending Serbia a list of utterly astronomical demands in an ultimatum
that the other country had only 48 hours to comply to. Given Austria-Hungary’s
state as a nation weakened by unstable and turbulent race relations, it is very
likely that the country wouldn’t have acted in such a self-assured way had they
not been certain they had a powerful and dependable ally on their side (after
Serbia rejected their demands on July 25th, Austria-Hungary then declared war
on them on July 28th). The fact that Austria-Hungary placed so much weight on
that perceived promise is arguably a testament to the strength of the
relationship between the two nations; despite the fact that their relations had
significantly deteriorated as of 1913 as a direct result of major disagreements
between the two countries during the Balkan wars, the two countries evidently
preserved their alliance and firmly declared support for each other. These two
countries have always been natural allies due in no small part to the strong
similarities between them, from mentality to culture and language, and so have
a natural tendency to support each other. In this instance, Germany lent
support to Austria-Hungary’s position in the midst of pleas from other European
superpowers, who requested Germany act in favor of peace to avoid a large scale
war. On July 24th, Sir Edward Gray of the British government requested that
France, Italy, Germany and Great Britain join forces in the name of peace,
stressing the current localized nature of the conflict between Serbia and
Austria-Hungary and their lack of personal interests in Serbia in particular.
On July 26th, a meeting was convened between those same powers to discuss how
to best handle the situation, an invitation that Germany declined. Germany, in
this case, neglected to attempt to deescalate the situation and convince
Austria-Hungary to back down, choosing to encourage the latter instead. Hence,
it can be argued that alliances had a very significant hand in causing the
Great War to break out.
On the other end of the spectrum, it can
also be argued that because the alliances were remarkably feeble and featured
unnatural unions between countries, they couldn’t be deemed the sole cause of
WWI. In the case of the Triple Entente, France and Russia were far from natural
allies due to their opposing worldviews and ways of life. While France was a
democratic country lauded for its freedoms, Russia was highly autocratic.
Russia initially had an alliance of its own with Germany and Austria-Hungary,
the Dreikaiserbund. Otto von Bismarck (Prussian statesman at the head of
Germany at the time)’s refusal to renew this pact in 1890 led to the formation
of tension between Germany and Russia. This mistrust and apprehension surrounding
Germany led to the creation of the Franco-Russian alliance in 1894. However,
this was a purely defensive move on part of the two nations; the conditions
imposed were such that if either nation provoked an attack on part of Germany
or its allies, the other would not be obligated to follow into battle. This
configuration would be particularly effective in defending the countries from
Germany, given that they were on either side of Germany and war with one would
be met with violence on both fronts. But while it was particularly effective as
a defensive strategy, it expressly discouraged violence, given that provoking
an enemy into attacking would be met with the loss of support from their ally.
France later changed their position, recognizing the importance of Balkan
affairs to Russia and thus resolving to support Russia should the tension
between Austria-Hungary and Serbia reach breaking point, but once the Triple
Entente was formed, Britain, the alliance’s newest member, had made no such
promises. In fact, the alliance didn’t force military intervention on part of
any of the nations to break up potential conflict. As its name indicates, the
Triple Entente was no more than an understanding between its three members
borne of a wish to counter their mutual enemy, Germany, a country whose
technological prowess and booming economy (among other factors) made it a force
to be reckoned with. This is a very notable point, as it was largely thanks to
Britain that the war reached such a monumental scale, as their participation
involved their ally Japan as well as the full might of the Empire. With this in
mind, it is easy to see that Britain likely did not act out of a responsibility
that they felt they had to honor for their allies, but rather out of a mixture
of self-interest and principle. Firstly, Britain only declared war on Germany
and officially entered the war after Belgian neutrality had been threatened,
something Britain had sworn to protect. Additionally, the way Germany made its
way through Belgium attacking civilians brutally and mercilessly with Britain
just across the sea forced the nation’s hand, as they felt that they had to
protect those civilians. At this point in time, the main reason Britain had the
upper hand on Germany was that their numerous colonies allowed them to obtain
oil, while Germany lacked overseas colonies. With the latter being
significantly superior in terms of engineering skills, their obtaining oil
could lead them to continue their trajectory as a rapidly rising power to
overtake Britain as the world’s superpower. For this reason, Britain was weariy
eyeing German relations with the Ottoman Empire, with which the Germanic state
was on good terms and from whom they could easily procure oil (Germany had
decided to do so by building a railway). Thus, Britain swept in with its allies
and numerous properties motivated by matters of self-interest and principle
rather than because of a constraint imposed on them by an alliance with Russia
and France.
A factor of great influence on the war’s
beginning was Russia’s preliminary mobilization on the 24th and 25th of
July (during which Russian officials organized meetings to discuss the matter).
This had a very significant effect on various countries: it caused
Austria-Hungary to put their guard up, anticipating an attack any second; it
discouraged Serbia from accepting Austro-Hungarian demands and complying to
their requests, a possibility that was still being considered and was left out
of the question due Russia’s movements being perceived as encouragement in the
face of Austria-Hungary’s outrage; lastly, it gave Germany, who was yet to
begin militaristic preparations in hopes that the conflict would remain between
Serbia and Austria-Hungary and other countries would abstain from interfering,
the sign they needed that war was imminent and so apply pressure on them to
prepare for it. This occurred as a result of Russian involvement in a Serbian
conflict, an involvement that was encouraged by the Triple Entente in the form
of Russia’s knowledge that France was very likely to support them while
Britain’s support was just likely. This key move was decisive in escalating the
war to the size that it did, and it can be partially traced back to the support
provided by the alliance system.
It is possible to argue that the alliance
system was the primary reason or simply a factor in beginning the conflict that
eventually became known as WWI. The support provided by allied countries to one
another prompted nations to act confidently and recklessly, escalating the conflict
considerably. However, it is not the only factor to blame, as seen in the way
some alliances were too flimsy, countries too incompatible, for their union to
be reliable and thus for a mutual responsibility to motivate nations to act.
Some were instead motivated by self-interest or by their fear of a common
enemy. Thus, it is clear that this question has no clear-cut answer, instead
motivating the comparison and examination of varying perspectives.
To what extent can be said that the Alliance
System was the cause of WWI?
A popular cause often named for the
outbreak of the Great War is the alliance system between European powers in the
period of time leading up to the events of the summer of 1914. This complex
system connected values, political systems and entire civilizations that were
often starkly opposite. Alliances all throughout the continent, and in some
cases even beyond the European borders, had ultimately split the world into two
opposing forces by the year 1907. The idea that this intricate network of
alliances could precipitate the beginning of what George Kennan once referred
to as, “the seminal event of the twenty-first century,” will be viewed in this
essay both by concurrence and in offering an opposing stance to approaching the
issue at hand.
One can see why historians often consider
the alliance system as the cause of World War I. As Friedrich Nietzsche once
wrote, “he who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not
become a monster.” This quote works on both the level of an individual, but
also gives insight into human nature relating to how the alliance system
triggered the First World War. Alliances united some of the most antithetical
early 19th century European empires and therefore may well have
been the basis of unanticipated tactical and diplomatic decisions by key
players involved in this conflict. One instance of these adaptations was the
surprising declaration of war from Austria-Hungary against its immediate
neighbour Serbia on July 28 1914. What caused famously indecisive Kaiser Franz
Joseph to make such a harsh move? Most likely, it was the influence of the
German Empire’s connection with Austria-Hungary that drove their ruler to this
decision. Germany was confident in its militaristic abilities and felt that it was
important for them to show open support for their ally. This strong backing may
have swayed the Austrian Kaiser’s mind in forming his decision of how to
approach the diplomatic crisis that had erupted through the assassination of
his heir. Writing this essay in Bavaria, close to the Austrian border in
Germany, we feel this connection strongly even now. Not only in the realm of
culture, but also in regard to mentality, the alliance between these two former
empires rings on still, almost 140 years after it was formed in 1879.
Therefore, it can be seen that the alliance system was, in some instances,
based on a foundation of shared values that assured one country, that its ally
would come to its side when support would be needed. Sir John Keegan wrote in his
book ‘The First World War: A European Tragedy,’ that the Great War was a,
“tragic and unnecessary conflict.” It is true that this event cost the lives of
millions of people and may have theoretically been avoided at any stage of the
rising tension in the years leading up to 1914. But when considering the
prominent aspect of values that were, and still are, present in many cases of
the alliance system (e.g. Germany and Austria-Hungary sharing culture, parts of
ethnicity and many more facets of society), specifically standing by these
values and supporting one’s allies, it can be seen that Keegan’s viewpoint is
not always justifiable. Alliances forced countries such as Britain to take
action to defend their allies partly because they needed to simultaneously
defend their values, not even necessarily those shared by their allies, but
their own. After all, what remains of a country, or even of a single person, if
they do not hold to what they believe is righteous? Values are what tie the
people of a nation together, what makes them believe in the righteous intent of
their leaders and government. If these were to be passed off as a flexible
system of belief, populations would lose faith in their authority figures and
entire regimes would start to crumble. Hence, countries like Britain that were
essential in making this at first local conflict into a World War, had little
choice but to enter the war on the basis of simple principle.
On the other hand, some alliances were less
reliant on the idea of shared values, but were based upon interest in combating
a mutual enemy. An example of such an approach was the Triple Entente between
Britain, Russia and France that developed from the Franco-Russian alliance of
1894. As the name “Entente” already suggests, this affiliation was considered
to be more of an understanding between the powers, rather than a militaristic
alliance. All three powers recognized the dangerous potential for Germany’s
further growth, especially through its 1882 Triple Alliance with surrounding Austria-Hungary
and Italy (both of weaker status but nevertheless giving the Germans a larger
sphere of influence), and therefore sought this Entente to agree on the combat
of mutual enemy Germany. A clear piece of evidence that shows that this was the
only connection between the empires in this agreement, is the distinct
differences between, especially, France and Russia. While France was a free
democratic country governed by elected leaders, Russia was a pure autocracy
ruled by the divine Tsar Nicholas II. Why would such starkly opposite nations
form an alliance if not simply for the sake of defeating a common enemy? In
addition, Russia had lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war from 1904-1905 (a
great humiliation for the Tsar’s regime), an ally of Britain. For what reason
then, except for its desperate need for support in the fight against Germany,
would Russia have to have entered the Anglo-Russian convention in 1907, only
two years after its defeat against their ally? In such cases, the alliance
system could not possibly have been the determining factor for the outbreak of
the Great War, as agreements between countries were not based upon the desire
to fight and defend one another militaristically, but to merely represent an
equal and opposing power against the forming Central Powers.
The alliance system can also be seen as the
cause of the war by considering its long-term presence in Europe, a
characteristic that caused multiple short-term triggers. What made this network
so destructive as a cause, was that, even in its background role in the
surrounding main action, it transformed local conflicts into issues of
international significance, by forcing countries that were not directly
involved to offer support to their allies and thereby become implicated. To
continue the example of Germany and Austria-Hungary, their long-term
affiliation came to a climax when the ‘Blank Cheque’ was presented by
Germany, a mere expression of encouragement that was interpreted as a sign of
unconditional support by the Austrian ambassador. This led Kaiser Franz Joseph
to feel more confident than ever in his undertaking of commencing war with
their neighbour Serbia, as they knew that their alliance, now seemingly
strengthened by the promise of total backing, would give them a better chance
at winning. The check was presented on July 5 1914, only a week after Austrian
heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian terrorist.
This local event, involving only two nations, Austria-Hungary and Serbia, would
have likely resulted in yet another Balkan war, had the alliance system not
ensured the inclusion of more European and even intercontinental powers, allied
to these two nations. While Russia came to the defense of ally and fellow Slav
nation Serbia, Germany backed Austria-Hungary, both empires further greatening
the war’s transformation by involving their own alliances, Germany, for
instance, seeking support from the Ottoman Empire.
Britain’s entry into the war, bringing with
it its great colonial force, transformed what might have remained a war fought
on only the European continent into the World War that it is known as today. It
is widely believed that Britain was primarily motivated to declare war on
Germany by the disturbance of Belgian neutrality through German invasion. This
would have made the alliance system a very valid cause for the outbreak of war,
as Britain’s Treaty of London (of 1839), recognizing Belgium as neutral, would
have led to the first shots being fired. But in fact, it was the strengthening bond
between Germany and the Ottoman Empire that lay the groundwork for the Empire’s
entry into war. Britain’s issue with the Turks’ support for the Germans existed
in that the Ottoman Empire had a large sphere of influence over Iraq, their
main oil-producing colony. Britain recognized that Germany may well have tried
to outsource oil for their own expanding naval operations from this
Turkish-tied region, allowing them to grow their military to pose an even
greater threat to the British Empire. In 1900, Germany signed its largest, most
advanced Naval Law, which was specifically targeted at competing with the
at-that-time greatest naval force; that of Great Britain. Additionally, the
Ottoman Empire had granted Germans the construction of a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway,
which could have led to interferences in the ‘Fertile Crescent,’ where British
interests lay. In response to the exponential build-up of Germany’s navy, which
came to a climax in the formation of close relations with Iraq, the British
Empire was forced to take action against their rival force, resulting in the
first battle fought outside of Europe, turning the war into one of
intercontinental dimensions, while disproving the idea of solely alliances
being responsible for its commencement.
The question of whether the alliance system
was the cause of the First World War can be hence argued in two ways. On one
side, this network bound together nations firmly, in which case the beliefs and
values of one side close-to forced them to defend said allies, leading to the
involvement of not only multiple countries, but bringing the war to an
intercontinental scale, which created the First World War as we know it today.
Nevertheless, one cannot overlook the incredible contrast between countries of
other alliances, leading not to a strong but to a rather weak and unreliable
system, in which each nation is only out for their own gain, rather than
devoting military attention to helping out their so-called allies. This
multi-faceted question has led to the discovery of many new and unconsidered
perspectives that allow one to draw own conclusions and look for new ways to
see the complex functions of the alliance system.
The First World War is said to have
occurred between 1914 and 1918, but actually started in 1894 when France and
Russia formed the so called ‘Dual Alliance’. This was formed because the
growing power of the alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany (in 1879),
sparked fear in Russia and France. However, when Britain signed the
Anglo-Russian Convention and the Triple Entente was formed in 1907, a World War
was destined to break out. The importance of alliances can be put in connection
with the current German parliament elections of September 2017, which prove
that sometimes a coalition is required to rule a country, and an alliance to
win a war. Unfortunately, forming a government is not easy and neither is
forming an alliance and fulfilling its purpose. This can be seen in
Austria-Hungary itself during the Great War, which still continued to struggle
with disputes inside their country (which was established from the Austrian
Empire in 1867). Even though it is difficult to identify the main cause of the
First World War because it is impossible for historians to have the mindset,
the alliance system did contribute to the outbreak of World War I.
Numerous historians argue that it was the
alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany that started the war. When Serbia
attacked Austria-Hungary and triggered World War I with the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the 28th of June 1914, Austria-Hungary shelled
Belgrade and declared war on Serbia one month later. This was supposed to be
the start of the third Balkan war, but because Russia got involved to stand by
their ally (Serbia), a world war broke out. Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum
to Serbia on the 23rd of July 1914, which left enough time to communicate
with their ally, Germany, to make sure that if Russia would attack, Germany
would fight on behalf of Austria-Hungary. After Kaiser Wilhelm II assured to
fight for their ally, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on the 28th of
July 1914. Resultantly, Germany threatened Russia that if they would fully
mobilize against Austria-Hungary, Germany would declare war. When Germany
started their own mobilization and Russia continued with theirs, Germany
declared war on Russia on the 1st of August 1914, which was the same day
France ordered a full mobilization. After the Anglo-Franco relations developed
as a result of the Entente Cordiale (signed in 1904) and Britain and Russia
signed the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907, the Triple Entente is formed.
Resultantly, France (who suspected Germany’s attack on Russia) began to
mobilize and thus urged Britain to do the same and help support Russia when going
to war against Germany. Even though Britain possessed one fifth of the world,
Hew Stachan said: “Britain feared their friends more than their enemies”, and
were not able to protect their whole Empire. According to Norman Lowe, author
of Mastering Modern World History, “for years British had viewed Russia as a
major threat to their interests in the Far East and India”. However, when the
Russians were defeated by Japan in 1905, she weakened extensively and was not
considered a major threat anymore. Although Britain declined their involvement
and their foreign minister claimed: “we are not bound to our allies, to the
Franco-Russian agreement”, they moved towards war as a result of their fear of
losing their allies. Hence, it can be seen that the July crisis, which
triggered the start of the First World War, was caused by the alliance system.
By contrast, major so called alliances like
the Triple Entente cannot actually be called an alliance because the countries
involved are not natural allies. In 1881, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia
formed the Dreikaiserbund, which was an informal alliance that should preserve
the Orthodox religion and conservative powers of Europe. Furthermore, it
was to settle disputes and keep the peace between Russia and Austria-Hungary,
which was threatened of existence due to the Pan-Slavic movement that Russia
stood for. However, it can be seen that this unnatural alliance did not survive
for a long period of time, as Europe was later split into the Central Powers
and the Allies, where Russia fought against Austria-Hungary and Germany.
Moreover, the structure of alliances was not definite and clear. For example,
in 1912, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria formed the Balkan League and
defeated Turkey in the First Balkan War. One year later, Bulgaria broke away
from this Balkan League and fought Greece and Serbia in the Second Balkan War,
and eventually joined the Central Powers in 1916. This shows the indecisiveness
of countries and how not thought through these so called alliances were.
Likewise, they were not always clear as they were secret treaties, which were
not formally signed on paper or had records of any agreement kept as evidence.
This can be seen in the so called Triple Entente, where Britain “does not even
know what was stated in the alliance”, as Edward Grey, a British liberal
statesman and former foreign secretary said. Consequently, as the structure of
alliances brought up immense difficulties between the countries involved, it
can be argued that the alliance system was not strong enough to cause a World
War.
“There
was nothing binding about alliances”, as Norman Lowe says. France did not back
up Russia when she protested at the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by
Austria-Hungary, Austria-Hungary did not intervene when Germany failed to
protect Morocco from the French in 1905 and 1911, and rather than fighting on
behalf of Austria-Hungary in the Second Balkan War (against Serbia), Germany
restrained their ally from attacking. This deterrence possibly prevented a
World War in 1913. To answer the question of whether the alliance system caused
the First World War, it is important to consider whether the countries chose
the correct allies during the war. Britain should have sided with Germany,
rather than with France and Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm II admired the British
Empire; their naval force and imperial success, and has “always stood forth as
the friend of England”, as he said on the 28th of October 1908. The
Anglo-German relations were on good terms in early 1914 and even though
friction was caused between the two nations due to naval rivalry, an
Englishman, J.A. Cramb, who had lived in Germany for many years said: “England
desires peace and will never make war on Germany.” But how can adolescence
in Germany, acknowledge the world-predominance of England? J.A. Cramb said:
“the outcome is certain and speedy. It is war.” Thus, the indecisive structure
of the alliance system and mismatching of allies can be blamed for causing the
First World War.
It is impossible to determine the cause of
the First World War. Even though historians argue that the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand (on the 28th of June 1914) was the final trigger,
there were countless events leading to the outbreak of the war. Even more than
100 years after the war, as a German, living in Germany, it can be seen that
there is a lot of blame put on our nation, especially in regards to backing our
ally Austria-Hungary. However, through growing up in Britain and going to an
international school, a greater mindset is developed on the First World War and
its causes, and these accusations are challenged. Two years before the outbreak
of the war, the Chief of German General Staff, General von Moltke said: “I
believe that war is unavoidable”, and before his death, Otto von Bismark said:
“some dammed foolish thing in the Balkans will go off”. This shows that the
nations involved knew that sooner or later war would occur, regardless of the
alliance system. Hence, even though there are aspects that speak for the fact
that the alliance system caused the war (such as it causing the July crisis),
when looking back more than 100 years later (with a greater access to the
archive), John Keegan was right. “The first world war was a tragic and
unnecessary conflict”.
Written under test conditions (click to enlarge:
From the 2022 marksheme: Evaluate the contribution of the arms race to the outbreak of the First World War.
The question requires that candidates make an appraisal of the contribution of the arms race to the outbreak of the First World War. Candidates may evaluate the impact of the arms race in Europe, especially regarding the naval race between the United Kingdom and Germany.
Other relevant factors may be addressed, for example,
Candidates’ opinions or conclusions will be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
to the arms race, candidates may suggest European imperialism as a key cause of the First World
War, since it increased tensions among European countries and supported the development of the
the army and also reinforced the arms race.
Closely connected
arms race. Candidates may also evaluate the role played by nationalism that led to the growth of
the contribution of the alliance system to the outbreak of the war. There may be some discussion
of Germany’s support for Austria-Hungary in July 1914, (blank cheque). Finally, candidates may
also argue for the importance of aggressive German foreign policy in the years leading up to 1914
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
From 1999 Paper II
From 1999 Paper II
Topic 1: Causes, practices and effects of war
Essay I:
An observer to international relations today, will absolutely see the alliance system in use, very similarly to what it was like in the late 1800s and early 1900s. With Syria being in a state of chaos and Assad supposedly using chemical weapons, Russia has stood on the side of the ‘President’ of Syria. America, on the other hand has shown that they are determined to give repercussions for the use of chemical weapons on the rebels and civilians alike. At the beginning, the United States had support from the likes of Britain and France, which they have modern day ‘alliances,’ treaties, and agreements with. As time went on, Britain dropped support of America and denied using their military against Syria, while France is dwindling on supporting America. All of a sudden, these ‘alliances’ and agreements don’t seem to mean anything, but they did really ever mean anything, and more importantly, did they cause World War I? This will start off by examining how the alliance system of the late 1800s and early 1900s caused World War I and later on discus other opinions and reasons why it did not cause the war.
On the surface, it certainly seems as though the alliances had everything to do with the outbreak of the Great War and as a result lead it to becoming a ‘World’ war. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand could of caused a war only between two nations which were opposed for many years, Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but as a result of the complicated alliance system, over 10 additional countries entered into it, creating ‘World War I’ as we know it. By 1907 two opposing sides of Europe were created. The ‘Triple Entente,’ between France, Britain, and Russia, and the ‘Triple Alliance,’ between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. When the Archduke was assassinated, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. This should have been a war only between two nations, but with the alliances in place, Germany had to support Austria-Hungary as it had formed an Alliance with them. Soon after Austria-Hungary declared war, Germany declares war on Russia, as Russia supported Serbia. Now the other two countries in the Triple Alliance will be dragged into the war as well as they were together with Russia and promised to protect one another. Later on, even Japan got involved, even though it was half across the world, due to an Alliance with Britain.
It can be said that the Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary caused the war as well. At the time, the newly unified Germany was the super power of Europe. It was smack dab in the middle of Europe, it had the strongest industrial base in Europe (second in the world), it had the largest population in Europe (excluding Russia), it had the world’s second biggest navy, and a huge well trained military. Austria-Hungary on the other hand, was falling apart and suffering from an unhappy populace due to rivalry between different races, as formally it was a collection of many different Eastern European states. One could say it was suffering from an identity crisis at the time of the war. The alliance with the strong Germany, gave Austria-Hungary the confidence and power it needed to go to war with Serbia. The ‘blanke cheque,’ was given to Austria-Hungary, which stated that they would support them in a war. Many historians argue that this would of never of happened, if they didn’t already have an alliance together. Without Germany on its side, Austria-Hungary knew that going to war would be a death sentence, especially with Russia on the Serbs side. As a result, it could be argued that they wouldn’t of gone to war without a strong partner. That’s where Germany came in. If Germany did not have an alliance with Austria-Hungary, they most likely would not declared war on Serbia, which as a result, would of avoided the start of the Great War.
One of the most talked about, and main arguments from many historians of why alliances were to blame, was the encirclement of Germany and the Central Powers. In the book, ‘An Improbable War: The Outbreak of World War 1 and European Political Culture,’ ‘Holger Afflerbach and David Stevenson,’ argues that ‘a perception of an intolerable, growing threat to Austria’s great power, security, and status (is) stemming not from the danger of immediate or direct attack by its enemies, but from the unrelenting pressure of encirclement, isolation, subversion, and exhaustion.’ This quote accurately displays the landscape and the extent of fear the Central Powers felt, due to the Triple Entente, specifically coming from the words, ‘encirclement,’ and ‘isolation.’ The Triple Entente had them essentially encased, with France on the left, Russia on the right, and Britain from the north, blocking access to the sea for the Germans. Certain historians believe that the encirclement of Germany helped to create their Schlieffen plan, which, in turn, made it so Germany would have to go to war with both France and Russia, even if only one attacked. This can be seen, when Germany declared war on Russia, and then only two days later declared war on France in August of 1914. This again, escalated, what could have been an isolated conflict, into a much larger World War. This encirclement promoted the arms race as well, leading again to the outbreak of WW1. Germany started to feel threatened and as a result, started to build up their army. When the other countries in Europe saw this happening, they started to build up their forces as to defend themselves in case of a German attack. This started an exponential increase in the militaries of Europe, leading to immanent war, as the nations were ‘ready’ for it. Also, as a result of the encirclement by the Triple Entente, Germany felt that War was going to happen at one time or another, and the assassination was an excuse for it to happen sooner rather than later. This can be backed up by the German head of Army, von Moltke, who said, ‘I hold war to be inevitable and the sooner the better.’
On the opposite spectrum, the alliance system didn’t cause the war, and it was other factors that led to the outbreak of it. One of the most glaring reasons why was that the alliances itself were very loose, in fact there were no military obligations in the Triple Entente. This would of meant that Britain, France, and Russia, did not have to defend or help each other, and they were not by any stretch of the imagination fond of each other either. This means, something else led to them being dragged into the war, not the alliance system itself. Recently, historians have started to argue that Britain got involved because of oil. Britain had a huge overseas empire and the world’s largest navy. Which was being led by the new dreadnaughts, which relied on a huge amount of oil at the time, as opposed to the old ships, which relied on coal. As a result, Britain ‘needed’ oil to keep its oversees empire. This can be seen where Britain first sent their troops in 1914. It’s a common mistake to think that Britain first sent its troops (the BEF) to Belgium. When in reality, when Britain found out that Turkey supported Germany, they sent their troops to Iraq, where Turkey had a great presence. Iraq was where Britain obtained their oil, as they had none on its own island. This rush to get to Iraq and secure their own oil supplies seems to be more important than the war that started a few days later in Europe, where the British Expeditionary Force landed. The BEF was even ill prepared for fighting and badly prepared. Also, Britain didn’t get involved when Germany declared war on Russia. They only got involved when they invaded Belgium, which was a neutral country at the time. They officially declared war because of Belgium neutrality, not because of its alliances with Britain or Russia. This shows that they didn’t have any intention in the beginning to defend each other, at least right away.
In addition to the faults of the alliance system itself, as to why it didn’t cause WW1, there were also a considerable amount of other factors to take into account. Imperialism and empires at the time played a huge role in the outbreak of the war. At the time, Britain had controlled 1/5th of the world while France was a close second. Kaiser Wilhelm II, made it clear that he wanted an empire for Germany as well. This significantly raised tensions between the European nations, as did several other conflicts relating to imperialism. The largest of which was the two Moroccan crises in the Balkans. Otto von Bismarck, a former Prussia statesman, said ‘The next war will start from some damn fool thing in the Balkans.’ He was frighteningly close to being true in 1905 and 1911. To undermine the French empire and expand Germany’s commercial interest in the Balkans, the Kaiser made it clear, with the representatives of Morocco in March of 1905, that he strongly supported the independence of the nation from France. The French were extremely upset about this and called an international meeting, which only resulted in increased tensions between the two countries. The second Moroccan crisis, in July of 1911, raised tensions even more. A.J.P. Taylor, in ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Europe.’ says, ‘[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War…’ This is absolutely true to an extent, with what we see in the Moroccan crisis, where Germany was all the way on the other side of Europe trying to undermine the French and make an alliance with the nation of Morocco, spreading its influence across the continent of Europe. But, there was also imperialism in Africa, which many historians argued escalated the Great War and brought Britain into it. As earlier mentioned, Britain got involved in World War I officially because of Belgium. This may not have been only because it was neutral, but because Belgium had control over Congo at the time. When Belgium took over Congo, they produced a huge amount of rubber (in morally questionable ways), which they traded with Britain. Rubber was an extremely important resource at the time in the making of boots and other items, not only necessary for civilians, but also essential for the military as well. Britain may have protected Belgium because of Rubber, which further undermines the reasoning of that alliances caused the First World War. A.J.P. Taylor, in ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Europe.’ says, ‘[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War…’
Also if you examine the political situation of the nations at the time, you will notice that it caused the war to an extent also. Most countries were not democracies but autocracies. This meant it was extremely easy to go to war since it only needed the decision of one person, as opposed to sometimes hundreds with democracies. The military expenditure change between 1910 and 1914 clearly shows this. France, which was a democracy at the time only rose its spending by 10%, while Britain rose by 13%, Russia by 39%, and Germany with 73%. This slight increase in France was mainly because so many people had to agree with it. Many people wanted it to be spent on schools, health, roads, etc. while the other countries could simply say ‘this is how it is, deal with it.’ In an ‘American Historical Journal’ book review, a historian argues that, ‘There was no "slide" to war, no war caused by "inadvertence", but instead a world war caused by a fearful set of elite statesmen and rulers making deliberate choices.’ Which clearly shows that only a select few could make the decisions on going to War, and war would happen. Even if you examine today’s international relations, there are no large wars going on between nations and any decision to do so is met with huge amounts of opposition from the public, and inside the government as well. For example, America is split between having military action in Syria, and not. Even World War II’s main aggressor was a dictator, one man, versus many democracies. Any decision on military action takes multitudes of time longer in a democracy. If all the nations in Europe at the time weren’t autocracies, it is clear that there would be a much higher chance that war could have been avoided.
In 1914 when the German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg was asked about how the war started, he responded with, ‘Oh – If only I knew!’ The truth is, not even political leaders at the time knew how the Great War came about, be it alliances, imperialism, autocracies, or a huge number of other factors that wouldn’t even fit on this page. Historians have been arguing for almost a hundred years, and will continue to do so as we will never come to an exact conclusion, there is just too much to take into account. Even the question of ‘How far did the alliance system cause World War I,’ is too board to have a definite answer, so how will we decide what caused WW1?
According to popular historical opinion, one of the primary factors in the origin of World War One were alliance systems that divided Europe into two main powers. When analysing the origins of the Great War historians tend to focus on underlying and precipitant causes that are rooted both in the dysfunctions of the international system and in the mistakes and vagaries of the principle governmental leaders. Take for example American revisionist historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay, who summarises that the primary cause for World War One was the nationalist, imperialist, and militarist nature of the alliance systems in place. (1) However, the position that international alliances in political opposition were the root cause is unfounded. The key point that this argument overlooks is the vital role that domestic dispute and foreign policy played in the destabilisation of the European sphere. Thus, I would argue that alliance systems and international tension were not the primary factor in the origins of WWI but rather that domestic strife and expansionist policies were the root cause of the Great War.
Immediately after the end of the war and the
resulting treaty of Versailles, the initial theory on what started the war
stated that Germany was to blame, an opinion that A. J. P. Taylor argues in his
book ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Europe.’ (2) However, the
revisionist point of view that emerged in later interwar years, and after the
end of the Second World War attempts to alleviate blame from the Germans,
placing it rather into the hands of the European continent as a whole. In
reading many of these theories, I have been able to determine a loose pattern.
Unfortunately, what I found was that although the framework for the orthodox
history of the causes of the First World War have no doubt been used to good
advantage in uncovering information about the beginnings of the war, their
approach is generally limited. No matter what cause they pin the blame on,
these interpretations all detach foreign policy from the domestic context (from
whence they stem from and in which they function). Most commonly, the theories
label the key cause as the alliance systems, saying that, as they grew more
contradictory and binding, the danger of small localized conflicts spreading
into global general conflicts increased. (3)
It is evident that this cannot have been the case –
in previous conflicts alliances have been called upon to aid a nation, but the country
being looked to for help would not respond. During the 1905 Moroccan crisis
where Germany’s back was against a wall, the German’s were failed in their
alliance with Austro-Hungary and Italy, as they did not step forward to help
them. (4) And three years later, 1908 finds Russia calling upon Her
allies France and England to aid her during the Balkan crisis and being met
with nothing. (5) These two examples show the very alliances that
were said to have started the war due to the nation’s being tightly bound
failing just a few years before. It cannot be said then that the alliance
system drove Europe and then later much of the world into war - delightedly,
history turns and slaps the historian claiming thus on the cheek with examples
of just a few years previously.
The alliance system aside, I have found that the
first of two primary factors in the destabilisation process was the struggle of
European Nations and their expansionist policies, which resulted in three
international crises. The alliances these crises formed and strengthened were
then used as scapegoats for war when domestic unrest threatened governmental
regimes. The first evidence of this was with the Moroccan Crises in which
Kaiser Wilhelm II visited the Moroccan port of Tangier and denounced French
influence in Morocco, aiming to test the new Anglo-Franco alliance. (6)
Unfortunately for the Germans, the result not only brought France and Britain
closer together but also caused an international crises ruled in France’s
favour. As if this first attempt had not been enough, the Germans then sent the
gunboat “Panther” to the Moroccan port of Agadir in 1911. Due to Britain’s
expansion policies, they wanted to keep the port at Gibraltar which gave them
access to the Mediterranean Sea. The war scare this generated in Britain
however was doused as the German’s agreed to leave Morocco to the French in return
for a piece of their Congo. (7)
This generated questions from the German populace who felt they had been
humiliated and that their leader was incompetent. (8) Both of these
crises emerged due to a desire for the control of more resources, more power
and expansion.
From the same motives of imperialism, further
international crises occurred in 1908 in the Balkan Crises in which both Bosnia
and Serbia wanted to expand into the Balkans. As Turkey had just overthrown its
government and was therefore unstable it left the Balkans and generated a
massive power vacuum. Austria then annexed Bosnia after tricking Russia during
negotiations. Serbia was angered as a large number of their population lived in
Bosnia. Eventually Russia bowed to German pressure when they supported Austria
and they agreed to the annexation. (9) Summatively, the crises
served only to harden attitudes and amplify distrust between powers, as well as
strengthening the alliances of Britain and France during the Moroccan Crises,
and Austria and Germany during the Balkan crisis.
What is evident here is that expansionist foreign
policy was a key player at the root of the war. As I previously observed, most
historical views approach the issue saying that as the alliances grew more
contradictory and binding the danger of small conflicts spreading into global
conflicts increased. In fact, I argue that it is the reverse – a crossover of
imperialistic desires and claims threatened to turn localized issues into
global conflicts, and that the alliance systems rose and were solidified to
prevent this.
I believe that the imperial nature of the European
Nations (which led to solidified alliances) combined with, and created domestic
strife to bring Europe to breaking point. During the decades (and immediate
weeks before July and August 1914) European nations were struggling with
extreme national turbulence. To prevent a total revolution in most nations, the
idea of creating a common enemy to unify the nation against appeared to be a
sound idea. During pre-war time, nationalism is shown to rise as the country
feels the need to defend itself as a unified front.
Take Britain for example – the exemplar Herself of
ordered change and constitutionalism was facing the impending possibility of
civil war. On the 20th of March 1914, just a few months before the outbreak of
World War One, the Curragh incident took place and the country was divided –
Carson and the Ulster volunteers with the support of influential British
leaders against Parliament. (10) Together in a Triple Alliance the
railwaymen, miners and transport workers all threatened a crippling strike.
This force roused the Labour movement, and in the ensuing polarization and
action in the streets of Westminster the politics of compromise and
accommodation were deeply threatened. Perhaps for England then, the
international war came at just the right time to prevent an internal one. All
across Europe other nations were fighting with internal struggles. Meanwhile,
France was being eroded due to a vicious struggle between two extremes (the
right portrayed the left’s antimilitarism as an urgent threat, turning a broad
spectrum of republicans to the right, while the right and center joined to form
a three-year draft by drawing on patriotism), which generated severe cabinet
instability. (11) In Italy in June the Red Week strike wave left the
Italian middle-class nationalists adopted a position of hostility towards the
left, resulting in Italy going to war against the desire of the bulk of the
Italian population in 1915. (12) Simultaneously in Germany, Arthur
Rosenburg informs us that tensions in Germany were “typical of a
pre-revolutionary period” and that if Germany had failed to go to war in 1914
“the conflict between the Imperial Government and the majority of the German
nation would have continued to intensify to a point at which a revolutionary
situation would have been created.” Russia too was facing problems in rising
labour unrest in major industrial centres.
Evidently most European nations were struggling
immensely with internal conflict and as Rosenburg said, war had come at the
right time to prevent revolution. I do not think this was a co-incidence. A
quotation from the French President Poincaré, backs up this claim. Poincaré is
reported to have stated that "it would be a great pity," if war was
avoided. (13) Perhaps he also saw the war as a chance for social
reform as at the start of the war income tax was introduced in France. Further evidence for this is how few nations
seemed to think it would be a lengthy war. Many British thought it would be
over by Christmas. (14) Russia merely partially mobilized her troops
along the border of Austria. Austria itself waited a month before issuing its
ultimatum so that the soldiers could return home to gather crops. A short burst
of nationalism and a victory against an enemy would serve nicely to get the
country to fall back in line. The alliance systems previously casually ignored
now rose to bear the full blame for the war. Interestingly, it appears that out
of the nations that joined, Britain did not use the war as a means of rallying
nationalism until the war posed an actual threat – with German declaration of
war on France, if the German’s won they would have control of almost all of
Europe, only 28 miles from English shores. (15)
Thus we can see that the alliance system was
symptomatic, and not a catalyst. Policies of expansion were the reason that
countries needed to find allies and strengthen the bonds between them. But this
did not always succeed, and often alliances were broken - the alliances were
just a symptom of the initial foreign policies of expansion. When European
nations found themselves suffering severe internal strife they then used their
alliances as a reason to be prepared to go to war in the hope that it would
create a sense of nationalism and prevent revolution. But the result escalated
as mobilized troops could not be called back and as a real threat grew out of a
political play. The result was a devastating war that lasted years. The
alliances formed were therefore not to blame – foreign policies of expansion
and threats of revolution, strikes and governmental conflict brought about the
Great War.
References Cited
(1) "Sidney
Bradsdhaw Fay, The Origins of World War I." Sidney Bradsdhaw Fay, The
Origins of World War I. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept.
2012. .
(2) Taylor,
A. J. P. The
Struggle for Mastery in Europe. London: Folio Society,
1998. Print.
(3) "European
History." Causes
of the First World War. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept.
2012. .
(4) Morel, E. D. Morocco in Diplomacy.
London: Smith, Elder, 1912. Print.
(5) "Bosnian Crisis of
1908 (Balkan History)." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,
n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2012.
.
(6)
Soroka, Marina E. Britain, Russia, and the
Road to the First World War: The Fateful Embassy of of Count Aleksandr
Benckendorff (1903-16). Farnham [u.a.: Ashgate,
2010. Print.
(7)
"The Morocco Crisis of 1911." The Morocco Crisis of 1911. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2012. .
(8)
"Two War Clouds Menace Europe." New York Times (1911):
1+. Query at New York Times.
Web. 05 Sept. 2012. .
(9)
Schurman, Jacob G. "Project Gutenberg's The
Balkan Wars." Gutenburg.
N.p., 22 Mar. 2004. Web. 05 Sept. 2012.
.
(10)
Beckett, Ian F. W. The Army and the Curragh
Incident. London: Bodley Head for
the Army Records Society, 1986. Print.
(11)
Mayer, Arno J. "Domestic Causes of the First
World War ARNO J." Domestic
Causes of the First World War ARNO J.
N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2012. .
(12)
"Red Week (Italian History)." Encyclopedia Britannica
Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,
n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2012.
.
(13)
"International Relations and Time." International Relations and
Time. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept.
2012.
.
(14) "Podcast
8: 'Over by Christmas'" First
World War Centenary. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept.
2012. .
(15) "Why Did Britain Join
the War against Germany?" Why
Did Britain Join the War against Germany? N.p.,
n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2012. .
To
an extent, however far it may be, the alliance system may have caused
the First World War to break out in 1914, just as the many other factors
contributing to the beginning of the First World War. In fact there is
so much to say about alliances an their impact on the war, that George
Kennan himself has written a whole book entitled “ The Fateful Alliance:
France, Russia and the coming of the First World War”. Hence this essay
will not cover every single fact in the books, nor will it display
absolutely all the reasons why the First World War broke out in the
first place, however it should give you a sufficient over view of the
situation.
When
analysing the events that happened in the year 1914 which finally lit
the match, starting the war, I would probably consider the most
significant to be the so called “Blank Cheque” given from Germany to
Austro-Hungary on July 5th 1914 just a week after the
assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, giving them the power to
make any decision they want over this matter with Germany’s full
support. Now clearly there are many arguments against this event, many
historians even claim that the Blank Cheque is a complete nuisance,
judging that Germany’s foreign minister was not even involved in this
declaration. Nevertheless, it is a widely known fact that the
Austro-Hungarian empire was very weak indeed, almost falling a part,
therefore they must not have been very enthusiastic to go to war when
their empire is already in such a vulnerable position. Furthermore it is
obvious that they were not too keen on going to war, judging that it
took them almost a month from the assassination until they finally
declared war on Serbia. This shows us they were hesitant about the
matter, therefore the blank cheque from Germany must have been one of
the major sources which influenced their decision, after all they knew
that if Russia attacked them they would have no chance standing against
them alone, however Germany did have a very strong military, as did most
countries at the time as they had all been building them up rapidly
especially during the 1910-1914s, therefore with Germany’s support they
had a lot less to worry about. Interestingly enough, between the years
1910 and 1914 Germany had increased their defensive expenditures to 73%.
However,
as stated beforehand, Germany was not the only power increasing their
military expenses during the 1910s-1914s, Russia had also increased
theirs to 39%, which is a very significant amount, Britain around 13%
and France 10%, though one must not forget that France had the most
modern army at the time. The build up of militaries in each country is
also considered a major reason of the cause of world war one. After all
it is a grand source of tension for any country to have the countries
around them building up their defence forces, as it indicates that each
country must have some sort of reason, which lets them feel threatened
and build up their army in response. Of course once countries have
invested so much in their militaries it is also somehow expected that
they make use of them, or else the people will question the reasons for
which so much money has been invested in them in the first place.
Nevertheless, the issue of militarization had been going on for the past
four or five years, therefore it is difficult to argue that this was
the reason war broke out in exactly 1914 and not a couple years before
or later. There was however a very significant military move made in
1914 which in my opinion was the reason war broke out in this year and
not another. This was when Russia mobilized at Germany’s borders on the
31st of July 1914. It is true that Austro-Hungary had
declared war on Serbia three days before Russia mobilized; therefore
many historians claim that the world war had already started at this
point. However, I do not agree with this, simply because when
Austro-Hungary annexed Bosnia in 1908, the matter did not escalate to
involve the whole world, Britain, Russia, Germany and France pretty much
stayed out of it. Had Russia not mobilized at Germany’s borders, there
is no proof that any other of the powers would have even gotten involved
in the Austro-Hungarian vs. Serbian war, it would just have been
another Balkan Crisis, and perhaps war would not have started for
another year or two. This move by Russia is what provoked the Germans to
officially declare war on them on August 1st 1914, followed by them declaring war on France on August 3rd.
This is one of the reasons why many blame Germany for starting the
world war. Although one must ask ones self, what other choice did they
have? With one of the world’s largest armies lined up at their border,
how could they have not declared war? Obviously a mobilized army at your
border is one of the most threatening actions another country could
pose towards you, they could fire at any chosen moment, there is no way
you could just sit their defenceless. Now AGB Taylor argues that
“General mobilization- not for war but to keep their standing in the
diplomatic conflict- was (Russia’s) only course”. However how was
Germany to know or believe this? If someone points a loaded gun to your
head and claims that they are just trying to make a statement are you
meant to stop shivering and carry on what you are doing? This is
impossible, reacting to protect yourself is inevitable, just as
declaring war on Russia was for the German’s after Russia mobilized at
their borders.
When
considering alliances however, one realizes that though declaring war
on Russia was nothing but a defensive move on behalf of Germany,
declaring war on France was rather tied not only to geographical
location and the Schlieffen plan, but surely also because Germany knew
that if she attacked Russia, France would attack her. This is of course
the result of alliances when looked at it from a basic stance. After the
alliance between France and Russia in 1894, Germany had always sensed
that enemies encircled her. Furthermore through all the crisis that had
happened since then, such as the Moroccan crisis of 1905 and 1911, as
well as the Bosnian crisis of 1908, Germany knew that she did not have
Russia and France on her side, and that, to everyone’s surprise, they
were even quite supportive on the matter of Germany’s increasing power.
For the French at this time it would not have been imaginable for their
government to have an alliance with the Russians, as they were the only
monarchial state left in existence, and the French were much beyond such
primitive circumstances. Nevertheless both these powers were very
afraid of Germany’s rising power, and not to mention France had had a
grudge against Germany ever since the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. After
all, they were thirsting to grab Alsace and Lorraine back the first
chance they get, and Germany was aware of this.
Now
this point draws us back out of alliances and into imperialism and
nationalism. Not only did France go to war in the hope of gaining back
their territory and expanding, Britain very much entered the war backed
up by very nationalistic and imperialistic reasons. This is extremely
relevant to the First World War having broken out in 1914, because after
Germany declared war on France and Russia, Britain declared war on
Germany on August 4th 1914, making it officially into a world
war as opposed to a European war. In the books it is written that
Britain declared war on Germany due to the fact that Germany had invaded
Belgium and Britain felt obliged to defend Belgium as according to the
Treaty of London this was there duty. However if there had not been any
other reasons for Britain to join the war, except to defend Belgium,
surely they would not have joined. This is not because Britain is
ignorant or does not care about other countries, but because clearly
going to war is a massive decision for countries with devastating
consequences. No country in history has ever genuinely gone to war for
only selfless reasons. Britain was the largest empire at the time,
having one fifth of the world under their control. They were not about
to risk this vast power by letting Germany take over Europe and then
slowly all their colonies too. In order for Britain to exist as it did,
they needed a balance of powers in Europe, and as soon as this balance
was at risk, so was the British Empire, therefore they stepped in. It
could be argued of course, that this case very much had to do with
alliances. Not the alliance between Belgium and Britain however, but the
cordiale entente, the friendly agreement signed between Britain and
France in 1904. After all, protecting the Belgians from the German
troops was nothing more than a plot to hinder them from accessing the
French. Now it could be argued that this shows the strength of the
Cordiale Entente and therefore alliances did very much cause the war to
break out in 1914. However, when one looks deeper one quickly realizes
that the reason England was defending France was not because England was
worried that their poor friend and ally would lose their power, but
simply because Germany would gain power that would in turn threaten
Britain. This shows that Britain may have declared war in the name of an
alliance, however just as an excuse to fend for them selves.
This
brings us to the conclusion that alliances may have impacted the start
of world war one in 1914 to a slight extent, however truthfully they
were simply excuses which could be twisted and turned in anyway in order
to cover a countries true motives for declaring war and put it under
another countries name, and as Italy clearly showed us, it meant nothing
to sign an alliance, countries still did what they decided was best for
their own country, and if this happened to benefit their “allied”
country as well, then splendid! There were so many alliances between so
many different countries that they were not to be taken seriously any
more, as Churchill says: “If you have ten thousand regulations you
destroy all respect for the law.”
When analyzing to what extent the alliance system caused the
Great War in 1914 it is important to discard any historical bias and play the
events in a historical timeline. In doing this you can then truly evaluate why
the war broke out in 1914 and not another year in this period. My moral
imperative is to determine what part the entanglement of alliances played in
the most devastating war in world history up until that point. Put best by
Kahlil Gibran “History does not repeat itself except in the minds of those who
do not know history.”
Looking into the log of European alliances since 1879 it is
evident that there is a common pattern of alliances between two great power
blocks in Europe, the powers central in Europe and the outlying powers of
Europe (entente powers). The series of
alliances formed between 1879 and 1914 was a continuous re-maneuvering and
reaffirmation of commonly accepted allegiances (with the exception of absolute
power of tsarist Russia and democratic France, initially) that countries held
to one another. By 1907 with the triple entente the great revel of alliance finally
settled in place. War did not however, break out until 7 years later, hardly compelling
evidence that alliance system caused war. It could be argued that even with
alliances in place war still needed a catalyst. My retort to this is the
Bosnian crisis of 1908 where nations teetered on the edge of war with Russia
and Germany mobilizing their respective forces, only defusing when Russia
backed down. Alliances by themselves still did not have the power to pull
Europe into total war, even as the Balkans experienced fighting. It is therefore
clear that alliance system by them selves did not have the power to drag Europe
into a total war.
The alliance treaties formed in the great peace between the
congress of Vienna and the outbreak of war in 1914 did not cause war in their
own right but turned small localized conflicts between feuding European nations
into global issues potentially causing war on a much larger scale bringing in
not only European powers but their colonial subjects as well. Without an
alliance system binding Serbia and Russia together, the assassination of Arch Duke
Franz Ferdinand would have resulted in a small conflict in the Balkans between
two relatively meagre military powers. (This seems a slightly unrealistic statement
accounting for Russia’s commitment to the downtrodden Slavs of Europe, but
still valid in theory.) Moreover, if
alliance blocks had not been formed, it would not have mattered how Russia
acted, for their actions would not have obligated any other nation to join them
in war. Alliances created an environment where war seemed inevitable and any
jolt to stability put the entire world off balance bringing war crashing down.
In Winston Churchill’s words “all that subterranean, subconscious movement
whereby the vast antagonisms of the great war where slowly remorselessly,
inexorably assembled.” It is my strong conviction that without the treaties of
alliance between countries and the honour obligations they carried, no
‘political’ leader would have carried their nations into such all consuming
war, as the frantic attempts of leaders in July of 1914 to stop the war
demonstrated.
On balance the great entanglement of alliance in their own
right did not cause the war in 1914, but it acted as a catalyst and enabled war
to break out. Alliances gave the world a
contemptible situation where one gunshot could hail a billion more. The
alliance system did not entirely dictate world war, as was seen in the Bosnian crisis
of 1908 or the Moroccan crisis of 1911 or even the Balkan war 1912-13. It did,
however, create a situation where had a military dispute between to opposing
alliance members broken out; the default conclusion was a domino effect of war
crashing across Europe. All the Great War needed was a distraction preventing
leaders from stopping the gears of war moving. This came in the golden summer
of July 1914 where masses of important figures from ambassadors in Paris to the
Kaiser in Germany, where on holiday blissfully distracted away from the coming
war. In the words of an American writer at the time “behind the summer
pleasure, the nations of Europe where like a file of marching prisoners chained
together by their ankles, prisoners of national pride shackled together by
treaty obligations.” 1914 was the year
when alliances where given their chance to show their devastating consequences,
simply by the culmination of events, the Great War could have broken out any
year after the alliance blocks had been set.
I believe this is not
an easy question to answer. The alliance system certainly did play a
significant part in causing the war but although I can only base my arguments
on books, facts, figures and the evidence that is left of this time, I can say
for sure that alliances were only the cause to a certain extent and I agree
with historian Jay Winter who said: "The First World war is a detective
story with no resolution..." [1].
Looking at the impact of alliances I
can conclude that they caused quite a bit of tension between the European
powers. In 1879 Germany and Austria-Hungary had their Dual Alliance, which in
1882 became the Triple Alliance along with Italy. Taking a quick look at a map
from these times this could have looked alarming to Britain and France because
the Kaiser was starting to spread his foreign policy and getting stronger. Was
he planning on something? Why did Germany need allies? These thoughts might
have been increased in 1887, when Bismarck made a secret Reinsurance Treaty
with Russia after the Dreikaiserbund from 1881 had failed. It seems, the
Germans were very keen on staying on friendly terms with Russia. Also, the
emphasis lies on "secret". It seems Europe's choices were no longer
made in the open. Was there a reason for this secrecy? I am convinced these
events caused tension among the powers but this tension can also be looked at
differently in the early 20th century. In 1902 Britain decided to form an
alliance with Japan. Some argue that this was because they grew worried by
isolation and again, looking at a map, this could be true. In 1904 Britain and
France formed the Entente Cordiale, in 1907 the Triple Entente. So if Germany
hadn't had any military intentions by forming its alliances would it be the
Kaisers turn to be worried now? After all, Russia had bonded with Britain and
France. I believe so, as he very clearly
tried to test the strength of the allied powers by provoking them through the
Moroccan Crisis in 1905 and again in 1911. As well as this the formation of
alliances caused the well-known domino effect to take place in August 1914. Due
to countries, having promised each other help, should they be attacked,
Britain, for example, had no other option than to declare war on Germany on the
4th of August as Germany's aggression was clearly directed towards France.
However, what about everything else,
imperialism, nationalism, militarism? These three factors were at least as
important as the alliance system if not more important, not even mentioning the
short term causes of the war that made it brake out in 1914, such as Archduke
Franz Ferdinand's assassination. Vladimir Ilich Lenin, a man who played a
significant role in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the founding of the
Soviet Union and whom I believe has quite healthy reasons for his perspective,
thought that World War I was an imperialist war. His view was that it was
caused by the expansion of European empires and thus the arising competition.
The different interests of the European powers clashed, producing the Great War[2].
Looking at militarism, my opinion is
that the race of arms should also at least be mentioned when trying to answer
this question. Putting aside all arguments over whether Germany was trying to
provoke war by arming up or not, it caused quite a big amount of tension and
mistrust among the European countries. No country liked to be smaller in
military size than the other, which proves how suspicious they were of each
other. Of course, this was also a question of pride. No country wanted to back
down in this. Could this arms race be considered a policy of building up strong
forces to prepare for war? I think it could. Take the tension and suspicion
caused by the alliance system and the different imperialistic interests among
the countries. Of course Britain, France, Russia and Germany wanted to be able
to defend themselves in the worst case and of course, they did not want to look
weak.
Nationalism also played along with
imperialism, militarism and the alliance system. I think it is closely linked
to the first two. The French were proud to be French, the Germans proud to be
Germans and I would be surprised if the British weren't proud of their Empire. It
was in every countries best interest to look as glamorous and strong as
possible and maybe even better than the others.
So far, I can come to the conclusion
that alliances were still definitely a cause of war. However, their weighting
is still in question. Looking at August 2nd 1914, when Germany delivered an
ultimatum to Belgium to allow German troops to pass through its territory, a
question arises when Britain clearly stated that if Belgium's neutrality should
be violated they would declare war. Would Britain really care so much about
Belgium and the Treaty of London from 1839, that Bethmann-Hollweg liked to call
"a mere scrap of paper"[3]? I
believe it wasn't because of the alliance or treaty itself but either because if
the pact would be broken by Britain it would cast a negative light on them or
because Britain simply needed a reason to go to war to enforce its foreign
policy, which takes me to my next point.
This foreign policy meant to Britain
that no one power dominates, which was why they created small states such as
Belgium. If Germany would take over Belgium without any issues it would be able
to take over France and if that would be the case, Europe would slowly but
surely become German. Therefore, Britain could not let Germany take over
Belgium or France but neither could they let France get too powerful. There is
no point arguing that The Triple Entente was the main reason Britain finally
declared war on Germany, it had to help France. But this was probably the only
strong alliance. The Triple Alliance consisted of two weak countries.
Austria-Hungary, economically weak and torn between many different races of
people within it and Italy, who hadn't had any significant imperial or military
successes and wasn't exactly seen as a great threat to Britain and France.
Thus, the Triple Alliance must have been more of a burden than support for
Germany and if Britain and France knew the state Austria-Hungary and Italy were
in, and I am sure they did, they must have thought that the Alliance could be
torn easily, and they were not mistaken as Italy later on in the war joined
their forces. As well as this, the so-called domino effect the alliances were
supposedly responsible for was, I believe, also affected by the July Crisis
1914. Could the assassination and the ultimatum to Serbia as well as Russia's
mobilization not be considered important domino stones too? And they certainly
did not have anything to do with alliances.
Therefore, I come to the conclusion
that the formation of alliances did play a role in causing the World War. It
created tension and suspicion among the European powers and was partly
responsible for the "falling of dominoes", that eventually provoked
the war in 1914. However, even I know for sure that a war to this extent can't
simply be caused by some alliances. I like to think that the Titanic is a
perfect representation of the pre-war situation. The powers, just like the Titanic
were going fast, wanting to do and be everything that would make them better
than the others. When the iceberg was spotted the ship was so fast there was
not enough time to decelerate or swerve around it. The Great War was
inevitable. Factors such as the clashing of different imperialistic views,
nationalistic insinuations and the constant build up of arms added to this
tension immensely, meaning the alliance was only equal to a small proportion of
the causes.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_winter_05_detective.html
[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_leninscritique.html
[3] http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war-i/world-war-i-in-1914.htm
I agree to a medium extent that the
alliance system caused war in 1914. The reasoning for this is that there were
other, more significant factors that led to the war. The alliance system was a
long-term cause of the World War, but had not much to do with the fact it
started in 1914.
The
alliance system was one of the main factors causing the war, however due to the
fact that it began in 1879 it is not the reason for war starting in 1914. The alliance
system commenced with the “Dual Alliance”, which was between Germany and
Austria. Italy joined this alliance in 1882- The alliance simply meant, that in
case one country was attacked the others would support it. The reason for
Germany allying with these countries was, that it was threatened by the fact,
that there were opposing powers on its east and its west. It needed to prevent
any other dangerous borders. In 1892 the Franco-Russian alliance was formed and
1907 the triple entente was agreed, where Britain joined the former two allies.
These countries felt threatened by the fact, that Germany was building up an
enormous navy (by 1914 Germany had built already 17 dreadnoughts) and army (1.5
million soldiers by 1914). The alliance system was sometimes used to test and
manipulate countries (the Moroccan Crises of 1905, or 1911, where Germany
tested the French and British alliance). In summary, one can say that the
alliance system was already created between 1879 and 1892, and therefore it was
not the reason for why war started in 1914.
The
alliance system was not a very equal system, due to the fact that the two main
alliances (triple alliance, and triple entente) were very different in power
and stability. The Triple
Alliance was very unstable. Austria-Hungary, was a young country with over five
different religions. Over ten languages were spoken, including German,
Hungarian, Czech and Polish. It consisted of many different countries and
therefore had too many identities of nationalism. It was not a good country to
be allied with, but the only interest Germany had allying with it was the cultural
proximity with the Austrians, and its direct border to Russia. Furthermore,
nowadays a German would not understand why Germany would ally with Italy,
because the culture, politics, language, religion, and even food, are so
different, that it would make no sense for the population, except for
geographical matters. A very curious observation one could make, is that the
instability of the triple alliance can even be identified by the flags of the
countries: completely different colours, patterns, and symbols. On the other hand the triple entente
was very strong. Three strong and stable powers collaborated and for one simple
reason: the rivalry against Germany. There was no other explainable reason for
why a liberal country such as France (“liberté, égalité, fraternité”) would
have allied with a conservative and fascist country as Russia.
In conclusion, the fact that Germany was in a weak and unstable alliance increased the conflict between itself and its opponents who were stabilized by the triple entente. It is sure, that the alliance system made countries enter the war that maybe never would have: Germany entered because of the Blank Cheque sent to Austria (AJP Taylor once stated “The Austrian government was not much concerned to punish the crime of Sarajevo. They wanted to punish a different crime - the crime that Serbia committed by existing as a free national state”); Britain entered because of Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium.
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
In conclusion, the fact that Germany was in a weak and unstable alliance increased the conflict between itself and its opponents who were stabilized by the triple entente. It is sure, that the alliance system made countries enter the war that maybe never would have: Germany entered because of the Blank Cheque sent to Austria (AJP Taylor once stated “The Austrian government was not much concerned to punish the crime of Sarajevo. They wanted to punish a different crime - the crime that Serbia committed by existing as a free national state”); Britain entered because of Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium.
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
There were several other important factors that caused World War I, such as crises, arms race and militarism (David Stevenson, a British historian, said: “A self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness was an essential element in the conjuncture that led to disaster. The armaments race was a necessary precondition for the outbreak of hostilities."), nationalism, and colonies. Kenneth Waltz, and American historian stated that “WWI was caused by human nature”. One should widen his horizon and think further back: how and why these aspects were generated. My reasoning for this is, that the War was caused by a generation factor. The generation of the countries’ leaders was born into great empires. All of them were born into their individual powerful nations and had then experienced the Prussian wars, which started the conflicts. As Otto von Bismarck stated in 1870: “A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that deals one.” which is exactly what took place. The Prussians (later Germans) were very proud of what they had taken over and as Helmuth von Moltke stated after the Franco-Prussian war: “What our sword has taken over in half a year our sword must guard for half a century.” These men educated the leaders of World War one, and therefore when Kaiser Wilhelm was encircled by three strong powers it was his right and duty to defend himself and protect his country. The half of a century which Moltke had talked about was not over yet, and therefore once Russia had mobilized (on the 31st of July 1914), he had to declare war. This is also supported by the German historian Wolfgang Mommsen, who has stated that “Wars only begin with the right leaders. The main actors of World War One had been educated accordingly, and merely fought for their blood.” As one can see in the above, the main reason that caused WW1 (around the time of 1914) was a generation factor.
In conclusion, as one can see in the above, World War
One was started in 1914 due to the Alliance system to a medium extent. Of
course it was one strong of many other causes of the First World War, but it
has not much to do with the fact that it broke out in 1914. The main reason for
why war broke out was the generation of leaders, but why war broke out in 1914
is very difficult to determine. The countries were ready, and that is why war
broke out on August 4th 1914.
To
what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance
system?
By many historians the alliance system is
considered overly simplistic, “war came to Europe not by accident but by
design”. This is argued by Gary Sheffield who believes war began for two
fundamental reasons, “First, decision-makers in Berlin and Vienna chose to
pursue a course that they hoped would bring about significant political
advantages”. Secondly “The governments in the entente states rose to the
challenge”. Whilst some historians supply other explanations for the outbreak
of war some historians some history imply that the alliance systems had an
impact on the outbreak of war such as Margaret MacMillian who stated “The
creation of the alliance system did not itself mean that war was inevitable”.
Echoes of the alliance system can still be
found in our society today, with the growing uncertainty in the Middle East we
see a clear divide in approaches between the West and Russia. To fully
understand how alliances caused the break down in relations one must first look
t 1987, where Bismarck signed the re-insurance treaty. This was signed by
Germany and Russia explaining that they wouldn’t attack one another. However
when Bismarck resigned the treaty lapsed which instantly made Russia weary of
Germany’s future actions. An example of how weak alliances were was the in the
Russo- Japanese war of 1904 where Britain and France were supporting opposite
sides even though in 1907 they would sign the Triple Entente, which was signed
between Britain, France and Russia. One of the first conflicts between the
European powers was the first Moroccan crisis, where the Kaiser visited and
expressed his support for the Sultan, which conflicted with the French
influence over the area. This in turned meant that Britain was forced to
support France even though they agreed with Germany’s claims for a sovereign
Morocco. This confirms Lloyd George’s statement “that we muddled into war”.
Another example of how weak the alliance systems was, was when Italy invaded
the Ottoman Empire. This was strictly against Germany and Austria’s will
because the relied on the Ottoman Empire because without it great instability
would be brought to the Balkans. Even thought Italy was allied to Germany and
Austria under the Triple alliance of 1882, they still found an aggressive Italy
attacking one of their allies. Christopher Clark made this point clear in his
lecture at Gresham College. However on the other hand an example of how the
alliances were stronger is when Gavril Princip assassinates Archduke Franz
Ferdinand on July 28th 1914. This prompted Germany to send a “blank
cheque” to Austria in support of their ultimatum to Serbia, which was made on
the 23rd of June. This causes even more hostilities between Russia
and Germany, as the re-insurance treaty of 1887 is no longer in contention,
meaning that the support given by Russia directly conflicts the support given
by Germany to Austria. It is this period of 3 months that provides substance to
the argument that the alliance system was in fact to blame for the outbreak of
war.
An additional argument made by Historians
is the “encirclement of Germany” the Triple Entente signed in 1907 fulfilled
this. The Entente meant that Russia was to the right, France to the left and
Britain to the north. Although these nations were not hostile there was
certainly the feeling that they were competing. In the book “Improbable War”
the threat of encirclement is described as being one of the main reasons that
war broke out because of the growing insecurity, which was breeding among
Germany and Austria. It is also argued that the encirclement that Germany
experienced led to the creation of the Schlieffen plan, which previously had
been attributed to Germany’s aggression. However this new tack shows how
Germany’s aggression may have been caused by premeditated conditions. The
entente can also be blamed for the escalation of threats because if only one
country had a minor dispute with another the other countries would be forced to
commit troops. So rather than smaller isolated conflicts the alliances managed
to conjure up a war of massive proportions. This therefore means that the
assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand was seen purely as an excuse to attack.
Other historians such as A.J.P Taylor claim
that German aggression was the sole cause in the coming of the first Great War.
This is made clear in his statement where he claimed, “The German bid for supremacy was certainly
decisive in bringing on the First World War”. This directly relates to the arms
race, which occurred prior to the first world war from 1900 to 1914. Where
every country in Europe excluding Great Britain had a conscript army this meant
that in the event of a war they could call up hundreds of thousands of troops
very quickly. In 1914 the German army was considered the strongest however the
rapid growth of the Russian army caused the generals of the German army
distress. In 1914 Germany not only had an army of 8.5 million in comparison to
Russia’s 4.4 million, this shows the difference in military however they
believed that if war broke out in a few years time they would not be able to
overpower the Russian army. This lead German general Moltke to say “War the
sooner the better” which epitomizes German aggression during this time
period. Germany was not only competing
with Russia on land but was also competing with Britain for the right to boast
the biggest navy. Germany has planned on challenging Britain’s navy capability
and added 17 new dreadnoughts to their fleet, this lead to military spending
snowballing and almost doubling between the years of 1900-1914. Another example
of where German aggression was the creation of the Schlieffen plan, which was
Germany’s plan of attack, should a war break out. The Schlieffen plan involved
attacking France through Belgium (a neutral country) to evade the French defences
and then march on Paris without allowing them time to counter-attack. Then
march across Germany to push back Russia. This shows that Germany was willing
to a attack a neutral peaceful country in a quest to overpower France. It is
this aggression that directly conflicts the idea that it is the alliance
system, which “forced” the German military to act. Confirming Emil Ludwig’s
statement “A peaceable, industrious, sensible mass of 500 million was hounded
by a few dozen leaders”.
It is claimed throughout history that the
First World War was inevitable, R. Henig argues this in his book “Origins of
the First World War” he writes “ European war was inevitable and that the
problems which plagued them at home and aboard could no longer be settled by
negotiation and diplomacy”. Margaret MacMillan supports this where she suggests,
“The creation of the alliance system did no itself mean that war was
inevitable”. She implies how the war was inevitable however she toys with the
idea that the alliances systems played a support role rather than Centre stage.
War had become inevitable as early as 1890 when the noted diplomat Bismarck resigned
under the insistence from Wilhelm the II. Countries had become committed to the
war as soon as the arms race began, the Germans gave Austria a Blank cheque or
even as soon as the Triple Alliance was formed in 1882. Additionally R. Henig
writes “In these circumstances, war seemed to offer an attractive way out…. The
balance sheet in 1918 proved how wrong they had been”. Continuing along the theme
that war was inevitable and any conditions such as the alliance system simply
increased the intensity of the war rather than caused the war.
To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?
From 1914 to 1918 the world was entrenched in a great war, a total war like none that had come before. When it ended, a peace settlement was signed on June 28th, 1919 called the Treaty of Versailles. In order to satisfy the masses, the winners of this war, Britain, the USA, Italy, France, and Russia, decided to pinpoint exactly who was to blame for the start of the conflict. This scapegoat was determined to be Germany, as a key member of the losing side. Ever since, it has been disputed to what extent this judgement was justified. In this essay, it will be argued that Germany should not carry the majority of the responsibility for the war. The true role of Germany’s expansionism, alliance to Austria-Hungary, and aggressive military in starting the conflict will be debated. Views of German revisionist historians Fritz Fischer and Gerhard Ritter will be also be utilized to aid in the argument.
Fritz Fischer, author of the 1961Germany’s War Aims in the First World War, was strongly in support of blaming Germany for the First World War. Gerhard Ritter combated this idea. His view in Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk: das Problem des ‘Militarismus’ in Deutschland (Statemanship and War, 4 volumes, 1954-68) is that Germany is not guilty for starting WWI. This essay shall consider both points of view and conclude that Germany was unjustly held completely responsible for the war. Germany’s expansionist and nationalist foreign policy was a main factor in Germany’s decision to go to war according to Fritz Fischer. Kaiser Wilhelm II often spoke about Germany’s need for ‘a place in the sun’ with the other colonial powers, and this aggressive colonialism made the other powers distrustful. This was particularly true concerning Germany’s over-zealous colonialism in the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911. Britain believed that the Kaiser was attempting to undermine their friendship with France in the 1905 crisis. Furthermore, in the crisis of 1911, the apparent danger of a German naval presence on Morocco’s Atlantic coast (among other events) left France and Britain wary of Germany. But Germany, a recently founded state, was still finding its place in Europe. It had only been existence since 1871, a result of wars against Austria and France. It had quickly become a large industrial power with a good-sized army, which completely upset the existing balance of power in Europe. The other powers were bound to be wary of the newcomer and consider the Kaiser to be a disturber of European peace. Germany was also surrounded by colonial alliances. There were existing colonial agreements between Britain and France, as well as between Russia and Britain. Though these were not necessarily firm alliances, it gave Germany a sense of being ‘encircled.’ It had to fend for itself.
However, Fischer argues that Germany’s decision to go to war was not defensive in the least; after all, it was a general aim of the German government to make Germany a world power. More specifically, Fischer writes that Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Holweg had hopes of annexing European Russia, Belgium, and part of France after Germany had won the war. Gerhard Ritter disagrees with this claim, writing that the Chancellor’s support of annexations is under debate as he was, in fact, against annexation proposals made by the military. Nevertheless, Fischer goes further to say that there were also firm connections between Germany’s choice to go to war and domestic groups in Germany urging expansion. A counterpoint to this idea is that the elite members of the government were not in the habit of being responsive to the general populace. Although Fischer writes that, no matter the reason, Germany did purposefully encourage Austria-Hungary’s war plans in order to create a conflict in which Germany could expand the country’s borders, as well as solve its issue of ‘encirclement’ by France and Russia and dominate Europe. This evidence supports a conclusion that Germany’s insistent expansionism was a major cause of the war. But these claims cannot be taken as complete fact. Therefore, it can be concluded that Germany’s expansionism was significant, but only one of many contributing factors to the start of WWI.
Still, part of Germany’ goal to become a world power included forming alliances that would add to its strength and prestige. This resulted in further conflict. Ritter believes the importance of Germany’s alliance to Austria-Hungary is often underestimated. He argues that Germany’s support of Austria-Hungary notably worsened its relationships with the other powers. Nevertheless, in light of their extenuating circumstances, their loyalty is understandable. The new country was exposed, without any natural defences against action from its adjacent nations, particularly France and Russia; it lay vulnerable between them to a two-front attack. Compounding the problem, in 1892-95 Russia and France signed a full military defensive alliance. Fear of a two-front war on Germany continued with renewed force. Yet Russia and France were not the only allied nations-- other opposing European powers had agreements as well.
This system of entangling alliances, which has been blamed by some as the cause of a global war, meant that Germany could be outnumbered if the agreements were honoured. For protection, Germany was compelled to maintain its only meaningful alliance, which was with Austria-Hungary. This alliance worsened Germany’s relationships with other countries. Germany’s support of Austria-Hungary during the Bosnian Crisis of 1908-09, for example, aggravated the other European powers, particularly Russia. Russia was humiliated by Austria-Hungary’s deceit concerning their annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and angered that Russia’s navy did not get any closer to being able to utilize the Turkish Straits. Germany’s involvement put salt on the wound. Germany’s alliance with Austria Hungary caused further conflict for the country during the crisis of 1914. In fact, Ritter believes that a main reason that Germany joined the conflict was to keep Austria-Hungary a great power. In his opinion, Austria-Hungary was set on going to war and they forced Germany to join them. Ritter even argues that Germany did not realize that supporting Austria-Hungary necessarily required war. Germany believed, perhaps naively, that the other European countries would be just as outraged at the killing of the Austrian heir to the throne as it was. Arguing against this view, Fischer says that Germany had plans for war previous to the crisis of 1914. He believes they simply used the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as an excuse to put their plan into motion. Nonetheless, whatever one’s views are, when all of the evidence is taken into account, it becomes questionable as to why Austria-Hungary did not receive any blame for the war in the Treaty of Versailles.
It is greatly reductionist, one might argue, to place all of the blame on Germany without considering Austria-Hungary’s role in matters. It is admitted, however, that Germany’s decisions concerning its military also proved keeping the peace difficult. Fischer believed that Germany’s aggressive military presence and growth was a significant cause of WWI because it drove wedges between Germany and its European neighbours. Britain, for example, felt threatened by German naval expansion, which they believed was directed mainly against them. Before 1898, Germany had large armies but small naval forces. In 1898, however, Admiral Tirpitz announced that Germany was going to begin the process of enlarging its navy. An anxious Britain engaged in an expensive naval race with the new power to construct the première battleship. Germany also made relations worse with Britain in the Boer War (1899-1902) by supporting and sending weapons to the Boers in South Africa. Prior to the 1890s Britain had not seen Germany as an enemy, but these events, among others, changed that view. Furthermore, the influence of German military plans in starting the war is strongly debated. Ritter writes that Germany did not have a long-term military plan concerning the conflict, only an immediate reaction to the threatening Russian mobilization of its armed forces. Also, he emphasizes that Germany did not believe that Britain would become involved in a potential conflict.
Britain, arguably, is the country that made the war a World War. The involvement of their colonies across the globe (from Australia and India, to Canada and South Africa) greatly expanded the scope of the conflict. The masterminds of the German military, on the other hand, were convinced the conflict would be resolved locally and swiftly. They miscalculated. Yet Ritter does concede that military necessity was the most important factor in Germany’s choice to go to war. Ready for use since 1898, the Schlieffen Plan was particularly influential. The Shleiffen Plan concerned how to deal with a threat from Russia. According to the plan, German forces would invade Belgium in order to quickly attack northern France. After France had been defeated, Russia would be tackled. This was all to avoid the division of German troops between east and west, weakening them. Sixteen years later, once Russia appeared set on war these plans had to be followed. War on France and invasion of Belgium were a necessary preemptive tactic. This action against Belgium became the reason for British involvement in the war. Nevertheless, there is certain evidence that suggests German statesmen attempted to solve the July 1914 crisis peacefully. The generals were a forceful influence, but Germany was not a completely military state. In fact, it spent less per person on its military than the other powers prior to 1914. But their strongest ally, Austria, had a multinational army that had been defeated in previous wars and was not necessarily reliable. All things considered, a competitive German military, with their plans and miscalculations, did have their place in causing the Great War. Nonetheless, to exclusively place blame on Germany while Russia and Britain go scot free is grossly unfair. Russia mobilized first, and while Germany did play a significant part in inciting a European war, Britain truly made it a world war.
In conclusion, Germany cannot shoulder unilateral blame for World War I. Germany should not even truly carry the blame for the majority of the war. Germany may have become the mythic enemy to many European imaginations before the war, but there was not much evidence to support this hysteric view. This was particularly true in Britain, where, in the years leading up to war, spy stories featuring German foes became wildly popular. More truthfully, WWI was a result of the self-centred and preservative nature of the European powers in general. This point of view goes hand in hand with the theory of Realism. In 1948, Hans Joachim Morgenthau developed his theory of Realism, which says that states are defensive and selfish. Morgenthau further argued that the world is full of opposing interests, and therefore country clashes are ‘inevitable’. Many international relations scholars claim that these characteristics of states are responsible for all international conflict. The idea that World War I was caused by competing national interests, rather than by any single country (Germany or otherwise), is generally a more objective and post-revisionist idea. Germany is to blame, but so are all of the other parties involved. One could say that all shared roles in instigating the world’s first devastating total war.
Fritz Fischer, author of the 1961Germany’s War Aims in the First World War, was strongly in support of blaming Germany for the First World War. Gerhard Ritter combated this idea. His view in Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk: das Problem des ‘Militarismus’ in Deutschland (Statemanship and War, 4 volumes, 1954-68) is that Germany is not guilty for starting WWI. This essay shall consider both points of view and conclude that Germany was unjustly held completely responsible for the war. Germany’s expansionist and nationalist foreign policy was a main factor in Germany’s decision to go to war according to Fritz Fischer. Kaiser Wilhelm II often spoke about Germany’s need for ‘a place in the sun’ with the other colonial powers, and this aggressive colonialism made the other powers distrustful. This was particularly true concerning Germany’s over-zealous colonialism in the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911. Britain believed that the Kaiser was attempting to undermine their friendship with France in the 1905 crisis. Furthermore, in the crisis of 1911, the apparent danger of a German naval presence on Morocco’s Atlantic coast (among other events) left France and Britain wary of Germany. But Germany, a recently founded state, was still finding its place in Europe. It had only been existence since 1871, a result of wars against Austria and France. It had quickly become a large industrial power with a good-sized army, which completely upset the existing balance of power in Europe. The other powers were bound to be wary of the newcomer and consider the Kaiser to be a disturber of European peace. Germany was also surrounded by colonial alliances. There were existing colonial agreements between Britain and France, as well as between Russia and Britain. Though these were not necessarily firm alliances, it gave Germany a sense of being ‘encircled.’ It had to fend for itself.
However, Fischer argues that Germany’s decision to go to war was not defensive in the least; after all, it was a general aim of the German government to make Germany a world power. More specifically, Fischer writes that Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Holweg had hopes of annexing European Russia, Belgium, and part of France after Germany had won the war. Gerhard Ritter disagrees with this claim, writing that the Chancellor’s support of annexations is under debate as he was, in fact, against annexation proposals made by the military. Nevertheless, Fischer goes further to say that there were also firm connections between Germany’s choice to go to war and domestic groups in Germany urging expansion. A counterpoint to this idea is that the elite members of the government were not in the habit of being responsive to the general populace. Although Fischer writes that, no matter the reason, Germany did purposefully encourage Austria-Hungary’s war plans in order to create a conflict in which Germany could expand the country’s borders, as well as solve its issue of ‘encirclement’ by France and Russia and dominate Europe. This evidence supports a conclusion that Germany’s insistent expansionism was a major cause of the war. But these claims cannot be taken as complete fact. Therefore, it can be concluded that Germany’s expansionism was significant, but only one of many contributing factors to the start of WWI.
Still, part of Germany’ goal to become a world power included forming alliances that would add to its strength and prestige. This resulted in further conflict. Ritter believes the importance of Germany’s alliance to Austria-Hungary is often underestimated. He argues that Germany’s support of Austria-Hungary notably worsened its relationships with the other powers. Nevertheless, in light of their extenuating circumstances, their loyalty is understandable. The new country was exposed, without any natural defences against action from its adjacent nations, particularly France and Russia; it lay vulnerable between them to a two-front attack. Compounding the problem, in 1892-95 Russia and France signed a full military defensive alliance. Fear of a two-front war on Germany continued with renewed force. Yet Russia and France were not the only allied nations-- other opposing European powers had agreements as well.
This system of entangling alliances, which has been blamed by some as the cause of a global war, meant that Germany could be outnumbered if the agreements were honoured. For protection, Germany was compelled to maintain its only meaningful alliance, which was with Austria-Hungary. This alliance worsened Germany’s relationships with other countries. Germany’s support of Austria-Hungary during the Bosnian Crisis of 1908-09, for example, aggravated the other European powers, particularly Russia. Russia was humiliated by Austria-Hungary’s deceit concerning their annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and angered that Russia’s navy did not get any closer to being able to utilize the Turkish Straits. Germany’s involvement put salt on the wound. Germany’s alliance with Austria Hungary caused further conflict for the country during the crisis of 1914. In fact, Ritter believes that a main reason that Germany joined the conflict was to keep Austria-Hungary a great power. In his opinion, Austria-Hungary was set on going to war and they forced Germany to join them. Ritter even argues that Germany did not realize that supporting Austria-Hungary necessarily required war. Germany believed, perhaps naively, that the other European countries would be just as outraged at the killing of the Austrian heir to the throne as it was. Arguing against this view, Fischer says that Germany had plans for war previous to the crisis of 1914. He believes they simply used the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as an excuse to put their plan into motion. Nonetheless, whatever one’s views are, when all of the evidence is taken into account, it becomes questionable as to why Austria-Hungary did not receive any blame for the war in the Treaty of Versailles.
It is greatly reductionist, one might argue, to place all of the blame on Germany without considering Austria-Hungary’s role in matters. It is admitted, however, that Germany’s decisions concerning its military also proved keeping the peace difficult. Fischer believed that Germany’s aggressive military presence and growth was a significant cause of WWI because it drove wedges between Germany and its European neighbours. Britain, for example, felt threatened by German naval expansion, which they believed was directed mainly against them. Before 1898, Germany had large armies but small naval forces. In 1898, however, Admiral Tirpitz announced that Germany was going to begin the process of enlarging its navy. An anxious Britain engaged in an expensive naval race with the new power to construct the première battleship. Germany also made relations worse with Britain in the Boer War (1899-1902) by supporting and sending weapons to the Boers in South Africa. Prior to the 1890s Britain had not seen Germany as an enemy, but these events, among others, changed that view. Furthermore, the influence of German military plans in starting the war is strongly debated. Ritter writes that Germany did not have a long-term military plan concerning the conflict, only an immediate reaction to the threatening Russian mobilization of its armed forces. Also, he emphasizes that Germany did not believe that Britain would become involved in a potential conflict.
Britain, arguably, is the country that made the war a World War. The involvement of their colonies across the globe (from Australia and India, to Canada and South Africa) greatly expanded the scope of the conflict. The masterminds of the German military, on the other hand, were convinced the conflict would be resolved locally and swiftly. They miscalculated. Yet Ritter does concede that military necessity was the most important factor in Germany’s choice to go to war. Ready for use since 1898, the Schlieffen Plan was particularly influential. The Shleiffen Plan concerned how to deal with a threat from Russia. According to the plan, German forces would invade Belgium in order to quickly attack northern France. After France had been defeated, Russia would be tackled. This was all to avoid the division of German troops between east and west, weakening them. Sixteen years later, once Russia appeared set on war these plans had to be followed. War on France and invasion of Belgium were a necessary preemptive tactic. This action against Belgium became the reason for British involvement in the war. Nevertheless, there is certain evidence that suggests German statesmen attempted to solve the July 1914 crisis peacefully. The generals were a forceful influence, but Germany was not a completely military state. In fact, it spent less per person on its military than the other powers prior to 1914. But their strongest ally, Austria, had a multinational army that had been defeated in previous wars and was not necessarily reliable. All things considered, a competitive German military, with their plans and miscalculations, did have their place in causing the Great War. Nonetheless, to exclusively place blame on Germany while Russia and Britain go scot free is grossly unfair. Russia mobilized first, and while Germany did play a significant part in inciting a European war, Britain truly made it a world war.
In conclusion, Germany cannot shoulder unilateral blame for World War I. Germany should not even truly carry the blame for the majority of the war. Germany may have become the mythic enemy to many European imaginations before the war, but there was not much evidence to support this hysteric view. This was particularly true in Britain, where, in the years leading up to war, spy stories featuring German foes became wildly popular. More truthfully, WWI was a result of the self-centred and preservative nature of the European powers in general. This point of view goes hand in hand with the theory of Realism. In 1948, Hans Joachim Morgenthau developed his theory of Realism, which says that states are defensive and selfish. Morgenthau further argued that the world is full of opposing interests, and therefore country clashes are ‘inevitable’. Many international relations scholars claim that these characteristics of states are responsible for all international conflict. The idea that World War I was caused by competing national interests, rather than by any single country (Germany or otherwise), is generally a more objective and post-revisionist idea. Germany is to blame, but so are all of the other parties involved. One could say that all shared roles in instigating the world’s first devastating total war.
