Download Responsibility For War

AL The First World War (1914-1918)
The First World War (1914-1918)
World War I was the first general war, the first war to involve most of the members
of the world state system, since the wars of the French Revolutions and Napoleon a
century earlier. It was long, bloody, and destructive. Its outbreak simply shocked the
whole world. No one power caused the war of 1914. Its causes lie deep in the history of
the state system of western civilization especially since 1870. They lie deep also in that
form of group consciousness we call “nationalism” and in an activity we call
“imperialism”. Indeed many factors contributed to the outbreak of the war.
Causes of the First World War
Nationalism as a cause of the war
1. Definitions
Modern nationalism was found in the principles and ideas of the French Revolution.
It later evolved through the following stages:
a.) 1800-1848
In this first stage, nationalism was little more than an emotional loyalty to a cultural
and linguistic group and a desire for impendence from foreign oppression (e.g. Greek
War of Independence).
b.) After 1848
i.) It meant the revolt of subject peoples, of the same race and culture, against the
domination of another power, so as to establish a new independent state for its
own race. Many regarded certain areas in other states as rightfully theirs
because they were inhabited by fellow nationals. This served to undermine the
multi-national greatness.
ii.) It developed into an aggressive movement for national greatness. Its more
extreme manifestation was exemplified by a crazy worship of political power
and a slavish devotion to doctrines of racial superiority and national honour. It
resulted in a struggle among the powers for hegemony.
iii.) Nationalism led countries which had been defeated in war to seek revenge or to
regain lost territories.
2. By the early 20thC, nationalism had assumed some dangerous forms:
a.) The Greater-Serbia Scheme
Serbia had dreamt of extending her territory and jurisdiction over all the
southern Slavs in the Balkans, who shared a similar race and culture to the Serbs (e.g.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Montenegro). After 1908, when Austria
annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Greater Serbia scheme was directed
exclusively against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It aimed at arousing discontent
1
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
among the Slav subjects of Austria in the hope of drawing these Slavs away and
uniting the territories they inhabited with Serbia. As a result, there was a series of
dangerous plots against the integrity of the Austria-Hungarian empire. And the fateful
climax of these plots was the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne in June 1914.
b.) Pan-Slavism
The Pan-Slav movement was related to the Greater Serbia Scheme. It was
founded upon the theory that all Slavs of Eastern Europe constituted one big family.
Russia, the most powerful Slavic state should act as “Big Brother” and protect the
“small brother” in that area. Russia also regarded herself as the leader and protector
of this family. The small Slavic states in the Balkans were encouraged and helped by
Russia in their struggles for liberty and independence against Austria and Turkey. It
contributed to conflicts between Russia and Austria in the Balkans and Russian
support for Serbia in 1914.
c.) Pan-German movement
It originated from the ideas of Greater Germany proposed in 1848. In about
1891, the Pan-German League was founded. It advocated the expansion of Germany
to include all the Teutonic peoples of Central Europe and even to establish a large
colonial empire in the Balkans and Western Asia. These ideas were strengthened by
the nationalistic writings of the philosopher, Fichte. Fichte taught that the Germans,
because of their spiritual superiority had a mission to impose peace upon the rest of
Europe. Such ideas had certain influence on the German mind. The Pan-German
movement served to intensify Russo-German conflicts in the Balkans and to sharpen
conflicts between Austria and Russia. It also led to Germany’s unconditional support
for Austria in 1914.
d.) The Revanche (revenge) movement in France
In 1870-71, France was defeated by Prussia, and was forced to cede
Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. It was a great hurt to French national pride. Ever since
1871, patriots in France had looked forward to the time when the defeat could be
avenged. This feeling was reinforced by newspapers and school books. Though A.
Cobban points out that “there was no serious thought of aggressive war to recover
them”, the famous politician, Poincare declared that he could see no reason for his
generation to go on living except to recover the two lost provinces of Alsace and
Lorraine. Indeed the Franco-Prussian War not only created an anti-German
nationalistic movement in France but also complicated the European diplomacy for
over 40 years.
3. Role of nationalism in the outbreak of World War I
Much friction was generated by the growth of nationalism. While this spirit had
been instrumental in the formation of a number of new states, including Germany and
Italy, its effect in some of the states was a disintegrating one. It excited in submerged
2
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
national groups the desire to create national states of their own or to join their fellow
nationals in a state beyond the borders of the one which they were living. Besides,
nationalism, with its crazy worship of national honours and greatness, nourished the drive
for overseas empire (thus leading to New Imperialism). It also resulted into making more
arms (thus leading to militarism), and for empowering with more allies (thus leading to
Alliance System). It also directly or indirectly led to a number of crises. It gave rise to a
feeling of distrust and dislike among nations. Under this situation, international
cooperation was not likely successful. In short, nationalism directly or indirectly
contributed to the underlying and the immediate causes of WWI and may be regarded as
the most important single factor leading to the outbreak of World War I.
Imperialism and Economic Rivalry as a cause of the war
1. Definition
Broadly speaking, imperialism means the extension of authority or control, whether
direct or indirect, of one people over another, in order to gain political and economic
control other countries especially those that are backward. Before 1870, Europe as a
whole showed comparatively little enthusiasm for empire building overseas. Only France
undertook any serious overseas ventures. However, after 1870 the European states began
to extend their control over vast areas of the world. By the beginning of the 20th C, about
1/5 of the world’s land area and perhaps 1/10 of its population at the time were under
European control. This worldwide expansion is termed “New Imperialism”.
There were 3 types of European expansion:
a.) Sphere of influence -- the imperialistic power enjoyed special economic privileges
in the sphere which was still under the sovereignty of the country being affected, e.g.
Germany’s sphere of influence in Shantung in China
b.) Protectorate -- the internal affairs and foreign policies were influenced and usually
dominated by the imperialistic power. Independence was in name only, e.g.
Morocco after 1900.
c.) Colony -- It was entirely dominated by the imperialistic power, e.g. India.
Various forces, not only economic but also political, gave rise to this new trend of
imperialism.
2. Causes of Imperialism
a.) There were 3 preconditions for colonial expansion:
- Europe was at peace.
- Explorations had provided the necessary information.
- Rapid communication facilitated holding large empires together.
b.) Economic causes
i.) The spread of industrialization to many other European nations in addition to
Great Britain produced an intense competition for markets and for raw materials.
3
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
The weak and vast Asian and African continents served these 2 purposes.
ii.)
Protective tariff policy in European nations brought about greater demand for
colonies as dumping grounds for articles that the home market could not absorb.
iii.) By 1870 or soon after, the population of a number of industrialized nations had
begun to expand to uncomfortable limits. Hence there was a desire of
governments to acquire territories where surplus inhabitants might settle.
iv.) Trade with the overseas British possessions was less than that with the foreign
countries and it furnished a small proportion (about 1/45) of the real income of
Britain. Hence the commercial value of the British overseas possessions was
apparently not high. However, imperialism provided good business for certain
classes (e.g. the capitalists and financiers) and certain trades (e.g. shipbuilding)
v.)
within Britain, which then strongly supported expansion. The great
manufacturers for export trade were very influential and able to make a definite
impression upon politics.
Overseas investment -- The British capital invested abroad had grown
considerably since 1862. Since it took several years to recover the capital
invested, it would be too risky unless the place invested was under the direct or
indirect rule of Britain. J. Hobson states that “What is true of Great Britain is
true likewise of France, Germany, the United States, and of all countries in
which modern capitalism has placed large surplus savings in the hands of
plutocracy or of a thrifty middle class.”
vi.) Nevertheless, the importance of the economic factors should not be
exaggerated.
- Though the European powers, especially Britain and France invested heavily
overseas, a considerably proportion was invested in America, Russia and
Turkey.
- Between 1875 and 1895, while the tide of imperialism was coming to the full,
there was a marked fall off of British foreign investment. So the export of
capital seems to have little connection with territorial expansion.
- The great industrial nations got only a fraction of their raw materials from the
colonies. The low purchasing power of the natives also disappointed the
industrialists and capitalists.
- The economy of the colonial people was so backward that trade with the mother
country was insignificant.
- It is probable that at the beginning the capitalists and industrialists were eager to
develop economic interests in the colonies. Soon they were disappointed. By
then, other forces became so influential that the Powers could not withdraw
from the scramble for concessions.
c.) Second Industrial Revolution
4
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
-
New raw materials such as rubber and aluminum because essential. But many of
them were produced in the tropical areas only. It was necessary to secure the
source of supply by direct political control. e.g. Britain invested heavily in the
rubber plantation in Malaya and later turned it into a British colony.
- New source of energy such as oil made the Middle East important to the industrial
powers.
- Mass production and accumulation of capital made colonies indispensable.
- In order to create a large self-sufficient trading unite, the Powers had to annex
colonies embracing various climate and types of resources.
d.) Social causes
i.) In order to divert the attention of the people from social problems at home,
national sentiment was effected by active colonial expansion.
ii.) Overpopulation -- Traditionally, it is believed that overpopulation led to
territorial expansion. Yet its importance should not be exaggerated. J. Hobson
argues that by mid-19th C, the population of Britain became stationary. Most of
the British went to settle in North American rather than in the British colonies in
the tropical areas. A Cobban points out the slow increase in the population of
France. Only a few French settled in French colonies. Therefore, the active
French colonial expansion was not a result of French overpopulation.
e.) Political causes
i.) Colonial expansion was looked upon as a manifestation of national strength and
ii.)
-
-
honour.
Germany
According to A.J.P. Taylor, Bismarck engaged in colonial expansion so as to
divert German attention from the European Continent. It was a means to prevent
Greater Germanism from being realized. If expansion was to be the outlet of
German nationalism, Bismarck believed that it would be better in the colonial
field than in central Europe.
When the military budget was to be discussed and a new Reichstag was elected,
Bismarck deliberately created colonial conflicts with other, power and thus
aroused a sense “the Reich in danger” so as to rally the patriotic support of the
Germans. Once the budget had been passed, the colonial conflict was
immediately solved, e.g. the conflict with Britain in Togoland in 1884.
- The rising influence and strength of Germany in political, economic, and above
all, military spheres forced the Germans “to demand a place in the sun”. The
ambition of Kaiser William II also led him to adopt a New Course after 1890.
iii.) France
- A.J.P. Taylor states that the loss of Alsace-Lorraine signified the end of French
prestige in Europe. The French activity expanded in the colonies to compensate
5
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
psychologically for their defeat in 1870.
-
As a result of multi-party politics, of the Constitution Crisis (the struggles
between the President and Premier), of the various crises (e.g. Panama Scandal),
and of the political instability (e.g. shot-lived cabinets), colonial expansion
seemed to be an effective means to ease home discontent, and its success would
pacify opposition and perpetuate a certain cabinet. In French overseas expansion,
she was encouraged by Bismarck who wanted to divert French vengeance on
Germany. Bismarck’s calculation was that France would come into colonial
conflict with Britain. This would in turn prevent Anglo-French cooperation and
minimize the possibility of French war of revenge.
iv.) There was also “a remarkable consistency in Germany’s attitude towards
v.)
Russian expansion in Asia”. Russia might come into direct confrontation with
Britain in the Far East. Then the Russian military threat on the Russo-German
frontier would be minimized.
Balance of power -- Whenever one power seized a certain place, it was
necessary for another power to dominate a neighbouring place to
counter-balance the former’s influence. The British insisted that they annexed
areas only in order to keep them from falling to a European rival, which would
upset the balance of power in Europe. The same applied to France. The balance
of forces in Europe left France after 1870 with the alternative of enlarging her
Empire overseas or a policy of resignation. France adopted the former policy.
f.) Strategic causes
i.) Expansion was also a result of the desire to acquire naval bases to protect a
nation’s commercial lifeline or to destroy those of a rival.
ii.) Britain’s annexation of Gibralter was purely for strategic purposes because the
straits controlled the route from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. So
was Britain’s control over the Cape of Good Hope, which connected the Atlantic
Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
g.) Humanitarian and religious motives
i.) Humanitarian motive -- Certain Europeans regarded it “a White Man’s Burden’
to help the undeveloped places and to bring the best of Western civilization to
the undeveloped lands. It was a mission to civilize the backward people.
ii.) Religious motive -- The religious zeal of the missionaries was another factor.
Yet the cross was often followed by gunboats. e.g. By the excuse of the murder
of 2 German missionaries, Germany seized Jiaozhou in Shandong. The French
regarded themselves as the protector of the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits
struggled with the natives and the Protestants in Africa and Asia in converting
people into Christians. The struggle sometimes led to governmental backup.
Marxist historians have regarded the missionaries as forerunners of the
6
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
imperialists because they supplied the imperialists with the essential information
of the place and the people and paralyzed the peoples’ alertness to aggression.
h.) Ideological factors
i.)
Social Darwinism and Racism -- Social Darwinism further elaborated Darwin’s
catchwords, the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest, and applied
it to the political and social fields. It became an integral part of popular and
even official thinking on foreign affairs. Some argued than an empire was akin
to an organism in that it must grow or die. So it was necessary to achieve a large
colonial empire. The concepts that the inferior and backward races would be
ruled and even eliminated by the superior and advanced peoples influenced the
Europeans in their conquering of the undeveloped places.
ii.)
Nationalism / Ultra-nationalism
After 1870, nationalism meant the desire of a people or nation to achieve
national glory and greatness. The acquisition of colonies, symbols of prestige,
was therefore essential. New Imperialism was spurred by an ardent desire to
maintain or recover national prestige.
3. The sources and the nature of the urge to imperialism were multiple, and varied
considerably from one country to another. It was normally the coexistence of
economic interests with political aims which made a country imperialistic; and in
some, such as Italy nor Russia had a surplus of manufactures or capital to export, yet
both joined in the scramble; Norway, although she had a large merchant fleet second
only to that of Britain and Germany; did not. Germany, whose industrial development
greatly outpaced that of France, was very much slower than France to embark on
colonialism. The Dutch were active in colonialism long before the more industrialized
Belgians. The major determinant was often more the activity of small groups people,
often intellectuals economists, or patriotic publicists and politicians anxious to ensure
national security and self-sufficiency, than the economic conditions of the country
itself. And, as the examples of the British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese show,
nations that had traditions of colonialism were more prompt to seek colonies than
were nations, such as Germany and Italy that had no such tradition.
4. Colonial rivalries
a.) Not all acquisitions of colonies caused disputes among the powers. e.g. The
French conquest of Algeria in earlier years of the century and the British conquest
of Nigeria in the 1890’s aroused little or co-opposition from other European
powers. Occasionally one power made gains with the encouragement or assent of
others: Bismarck encouraged France to expand in Africa and in the Far East so as
to divert French vengeance away from Germany.
b.) The Berlin Conference of 1884-85
Bismarck and Jules Ferry of France cooperated in 1884 to summon an
7
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
international conference at Berlin to settle amicably the future of the Congo in
central Africa. In the ensuring Treaty of Berlin of 1885, the term “spheres of
influence” was first used. It was agreed that in future any power that effectively
occupied African territory and duly notified the other powers could thereby
establish possession of it. This gave the signal for the rapid partition of Africa
among all the colonial powers, and inaugurated the new ear of colonialism.
c.) The simultaneous expansion of European powers overseas, especially during the
20 years after the Berlin Conference, brought them into frequent collisions at
remote points all over Africa and the Far East.
(i) Britain and France (The Fashoda Incident)
Frictions between Britain and France about Egypt and the Sudan, which caused
the first dispute, reached their climax in 1898 in the famous incident of Fashoda.
France had resented being ouster from Egypt when Egypt became virtually a Britain
protectorate. In 1989, Fashoda, a small town in the Sudan, became center of a crisis in
Anglo-French relations. The French claim to the Fashoda region was denied by the
British. The deadlock at Fashoda brought Britain and France to the brink of war.
Finally, France gave in and withdrew from the Sudan. There was a general sense of
humiliation and bitterness in France. Nevertheless, when the fury died down on both
sides, the two countries found themselves nearer to a general understanding. This
paved the way for the Entente Cordiale of 1904 which peacefully settled
Anglo-French colonies conflicts.
(ii)
Britain and Germany (The Boer Wars)
From 1870 to 1890, Germany, under Bismarck, was unwilling to acquire
colonies. Bismarck regarded Germany as a satiated state that required no expansion.
He once said, “My map of Africa lie in Europe.” After 1890, Kaiser William II
adopted a “New Course” “to demand a place in the sun “so as to justify Germany’s
economic power. Relations between Britain and Germany were complicated by the
developments in South Africa. Britain was against the Boer republics in southern
Africa. German sympathy and support for the Boers in the Boer Wars (1899-1902)
served to divert British anger upon Germany. However, the two states remained
basically amicable.
(iii) Germany and France (The Moroccan Crises)
After the Franco-Prussian War, France actively expanded in Africa and in the Far
East to compensate for their loss of greatness. France wanted to control Morocco but
Germany wanted it to remain independence. A critical dispute arouse between
Germany and France about Morocco, which was a recurrent bone of contention
between them in the 20 years before 1914. The Moroccan Crises (1905 and 1911),
though solved peacefully, intensified Franco-German rivalries and strengthened the
Anglo-French Entente.
8
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
(iv) France and Italy
When France set up a protectorate in Tunisia, she came to clash with Italy which
also expanded in Tunisia. Being upset by the French activity, the Italians allied with
Germany and Austria in 1882. However, in 1900, the Franco-Italian Agreement ended
the hostility between the two countries.
5. Results of Imperialism
a.) By the early 20th C, 1/5 of the world and 1/10 of the world’s population were
under the control of the European Powers. The European settlers brought to many
areas of the world some increase of law and order, some increase in material
production and improvements in transportation and distribution, health and
sanitation. And these in turn caused a general low death rate among the
undeveloped areas.
b.) Imperialism and white domination brought about the rise of nationalism among
the African and Asian peoples. Conflict between the ruled and the ruler was
inevitable.
c.) Lenin said that the scramble for concessions and financial capitalism inevitably
led to serve conflicts among the Powers, which, in turn, contributed to war.
However, the role of New Imperialism in causing WWI should not be
over-emphasized because by 1914, nearly all colonial conflicts among the Powers
had been peacefully settled by diplomatic means. Its importance is that it created
hostility and tension among the European Powers, which, in turn, accelerated the
formation of the Alliance System (e.g. Triple Alliance) and armaments race.
(Colonial conquests were backed up by armed forces, especially powerful fleets.)
(But there is no evidence that colonial issues were decisive in determining the
formation of the 2 rival systems of alliances. Italy ended by making agreements
with all the powers in turn and remained the most unpredictable and unreliable
ally of either side.) In short, colonial collisions were certainly not decisive in
making the situation that precipitated war between the rival alliances in 1914.
6. Economic rivalry
a.) According to the socialist interpretation, war had grown out of economic
jealousies and rival imperialism. Proofs cited were the trade competition between
Germany and Britain for a generation before 1914, the conflicting colonial
ambition of the European powers, the intrigues or high finance for concession in
Asia, Africa and the Near East, concessions for loans, railways, canals and other
profitable enterprises. It was true that economic interests and rivalries had much
to do with poisoning international relations in the 43 years from 1870 to 1914.
b.) Germany’s rapid industrialization challenged Britain’s economic leadership.
Anglo-German relations were to a certain extent affected by their economic
rivalries. Britain was the leading industrial state, but Germany was catching up
9
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
fast, especially in electrical and chemical industries. The rise of German economic
strength made the Germans demand political and territorial prestige to justify their
economic achievements. Besides, Germany’s protective tariffs, overseas
investments and rapid economic growth caused fear and jealousy in Britain. On
the other hand, France also felt threatened by Germany’s industrial and
commercial expansion. The French feared that Germany might take mineral
deposits in northern France.
c.) On the colonial side, there was sharp conflict between Britain and Russia in Persia
and the Far East, between France and Italy in Tunisia, between Germany and
France in Morocco, between France and Britain in Egypt and Siam, and between
Britain and Germany in S. Africa. Likewise the Baghdad railway involved Britain,
France, Germany and Russia. These disputes had much to do with the building up
of large navies by the western powers, for sear power was necessary to guard their
interest.
d.) Yet economic interest had little to do with the outbreak of war. In the first place,
in the pre-war years, the trade competition between Britain and Germany was
ceasing for they were developing their markets, Britain more and more with its
own Empire, Germany more and more on the continent. In July 1914 the loudest
protests against war were made by the businessmen in Germany and Britain. On
the colonial side, the great powers succeeded in partitioning Africa without resort
to war. To be sure, the British fought the Boers in S. Africa, and Britain, France,
Germany and Italy fought the natives in Africa, but they did not fight each other.
e.) In fact, the ruling groups in European governments were not men who thought in
terms of business and economic advantages but strategy and military power and
national prestige and paid little attention to the wails of businessmen.
The Alliance System as a cause of the war
1. General background
a.) Germany had become the most powerful state. It had a strong army and powerful
navy. It had tremendous industrial progress. This aroused jealousy and fear among
powers.
b.) After the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck wanted to maintain status quo in Europe
and to prevent the defeated France from securing an ally for a war of revenge. He
thus initiated a series of alliances.
c.) The increasing political, economic and military rivalries in Europe created danger
of war. Each European power needed allies to empower itself.
d.) The small states, especially the Balkan states, sought for support of the Great
powers to back up their ambitions.
e.) Austria-Hungary turned to Germany for support against Russian rivalries in the
10
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
Balkans.
f.) France turned to Russia to end her diplomatic isolation in order to take revenge and
rely on its huge manpower.
g.) Russia needed French investment and money for preventing revolution. She aimed
to form an alliance with France, which would minimize Germany’s threat to Russia.
h.) Since 1823 Britain had adopted the “Splendid Isolation”. However, by the end of
the 19th C, the tense European situation turned Britain politically and diplomatically
in an unfavorable position. Britain was alarmed at the growing naval and industrial
power of Germany. This was a threat to its naval supremacy. Subsequently Britain
also sought for allies.
2. Bismarck’s policy
a.) After unifying Germany, Bismarck now desired peace and stability in Europe.
b.) This, he believed, depended on the isolation of France. Thus he aimed to keep
France weak and isolated.
c.) At the same time he tried to maintain good relations with Russia in order to avoid a
2-front war.
d.) Against this background, Bismarck initiated a series of alliances. His alliances were
intended to be defensive in nature. With strong alliances on Germany’s side, no
combination of powers dared attack Germany.
A. Dreikaiserbund, 1873 (League of the Three Emperors)
a.) Signatories: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia
b.) It was devised by Bismarck to maintain peace in Eastern Europe and to prevent
Austro-Russian conflicts in the Balkans.
c.) Terms: The 3 signatories agreed to
- remain neutral if one member of the League was attacked
- resist revolutions
- maintain the system as it was in 1871
- settle the problems in the Balkans
d.) Results -- it was little more than a vague understanding emphasizing the importance
of monarchical solidarity against subversive movements. The Austro-Russian
rivalries in the Balkans made the agreement ineffective. Its weakness was revealed
in the Balkan crisis of 1875-78. In the Congress of Berlin (1878), Germany backed
up Austria against Russia. Russia was alienated and relations among Russia,
Germany and Austria worsened.
B. The Dual Alliance, 1879
a.) Signatories: Germany and Austria-Hungary
b.) Background
ii.) From the start, the Dreikaiserbund was ineffective because of the
Austro-Russian conflicts. In the Congress of Berlin of 1878, Russia was
11
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
diplomatically isolated. Austro-Russian conflicts over the Balkans were
intensified.
iii.) Bismarck assumed that an alliance with Russia would excite the opposition of
Britain.
iv.) As argued by A.J.P. Taylor, Bismarck also assumed that an alliance with
Austria-Hungary would make Austria-Hungary more dependent on German
support. Consequently, she could restrain Austrian expansion in the Balkans (i.e.
to prevent Greater Germanism) thus avoid a direct Russo-German conflict there.
v.) An alliance with Austria would open the Danube, the main trade route to the
Mediterranean Sea, to Germany.
vi.) After the Congress of Berlin, the Austrians gave up the hope of revenge on the
defeat in the Austro-Prussian War, 1866. The militarists gained more influence
and realized that the only way to achieve expansions in the Balkans was to reply
on firm German support.
c.) Terms (to be kept secret)
i.) They agreed to support each other if attacked by Russia.
ii.) Should a state other than Russia was the aggressor, the treaty party would
remain neutral, unless Russia joined the enemy.
d.) Importance
It was a defensive alliance. It grew steadily in importance and became the
mainspring of German policy in the early 20th C. Bismarck was criticized for
binding Germany to the troubled Habsburg monarchy and for forcing Russia to seek
an alliance elsewhere.
C. Renewal of the Dreikaiserbund
a.) Background
i.) The alienation between Russia and Germany after the Congress of Berlin was
unfavourable to Germany because it might lead to a Franco-Russian
rapprochement.
ii.) Austro-Russian conflicts in the Balkans might drag Germany into the danger of
war between the 2 powers.
iii.) Russia urged the renewal of the Dreikaiserbund because she feared the
combined power of Germany and Austria.
b.) Terms (to be kept secret)
i.) The signatories agreed prior consultation about changes in the status quo in
Turkey.
ii.) They guaranteed benevolent neutrality if none of them was at war with a fourth
power (except Turkey).
c.) Results
i.) The agreement was renewed in 1884 and lapsed in 1887.
12
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
ii.) Russia was pleased by the reinsurance that the Dual Alliance was not
anti-Russian.
D. The Triple Alliance, 1882
a.) Signatories: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy
b.) Background
i.) When France occupied Tunis, Italy was very angry. She was then persuaded by
Bismarck to join the Dual Alliance.
ii.) A.J.P Taylor argues that Bismarck deliberately created Italy as a Mediterranean
power to prevent any Franco-Italian alliance and to relieve Austria in the event
of war in the Balkans.
iii.) Joining with Austria had one more advantage for Italy. How they were allies,
fear of Austrian invasion was thus eliminated.
c.) Terms (to be kept secret)
i.) Germany and Austria were to come to Italy’s assistance if she were attacked by
France.
ii.) Italy would help Germany if Germany was attacked by France.
iii.) If one of them was attacked by any two or more Great Powers, the others would
come to her assistance.
d.) Results
i.) Italy was not a reliable ally. Austria had been the prime enemy of Italian
unification and still occupied Italian territories, and France had helped the
Italians in their unification. Once the temporary anger of the Italians passed, an
alliance with France was more acceptable.
ii.) It was, in the long run, a diplomatic failure to Germany because the Italians
fought Germany during World War I.
E. The Reinsurance Treaty, 1887-1890
a.) Signatories: Germany and Russia
b.) Background
After the lapse of the Dreikaiserbund, Bismarck feared a Franco-Russian
rapprochement. He had to secure Russian friendship by a new treaty.
c.) Terms (to be kept secret)
i.) If either was at war, the other would remain neutral.
ii.) If Russia attacked Austria or Germany attacked France, the treaty partner would
have full freedom of action.
d.) Results -- It remained valid only until 1890, and was not renewed because William
II, who wished to emancipate himself from the domination of Bismarck, dismissed
him. The Kaiser and the chancellors after Bismarck lacked the political insight and
genius of Bismarck. William II adopted a “New Course” (i.e. a global policy the
task, worldwide power the aim, the navy the means”) They decided not to renew the
13
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
Reinsurance Treaty with Russia on the ground that they did not trust and they
preferred a diplomatic understanding with Britain. This decision had long been
feared by Bismarck, since a deserted Russia would seek ally somewhere.
F. Franco-Russian Alliance, 1894
a.) Background
i.) Russo-German split began in the Congress of Berlin (1878) and became wider
after 1890.
ii.) In the late 1880s, Russia and France had been moving closer together. First of
all, Russia distrusted William II’s “New Course”. Besides, Russia had started
her Industrial Revolution and was anxious to float considerable loans in Paris.
In 1888, Russia loaned a large amount of money from France. French huge
investments in Russia also paved the way for political and military cooperation.
In 1889, Russia began buying munitions from France. The end of the
Reinsurance Treaty in 1890 brought Russia even closer to France.
iii.) Facing the rising German political, economic and military influence, the French
were anxious to prevent another German attack on France. An alliance with
Russia would turn Germany to face two enemies at the eastern and western
frontiers simultaneously and thus minimize the danger of war. Moreover, the
alliance would strengthen France’s diplomatic position.
b.) Terms (to be kept secret)
There were several treaties signed between 1891 and 1894.
i.) In 1891, the tow counties agreed to a joint consultation in case of a war crisis.
ii.) In 1893 and 1894, a formal secret military convention was agreed upon. It was
directed against the Triple Alliance powers:
- Should any member of the Triple Alliance mobilize, the two treaty parties
would mobilize as well.
- Each should come to the aid of the other in case of an attack by Germany, or
by Austria or Italy supported by Germany.
c.) Significance
i.) The alliance was a landmark in European affairs. The wall that Bismarck had
built to isolate France was now broken.
ii.) Two opposing camps (Triple Alliance versus Franco-Russian Alliances) had
then been formed. European situation became tenser.
iii.) Although the exact nature of the alliance was not known until after the war, the
Germans were so convinced that France would come to Russia’s aid in 1914
that they seized the initiative by declaring war on France less than 48 hours after
their declaration of war on Russia.
iv.) French and German historians argue that French policy in 1914 was determined
by … maintaining the Russian alliance which was considered an indispensable
14
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
counterweigh to German power.”
G. Franco-Italian agreement, 1902
a.) Signatories: France and Italy
b.) Background
By 1900, the Republicans in France dominated French politics. Italy no longer
feared a monarchist-clerical intervention on behalf of the Pope. Besides, the Italian
anger over the French conquest of Tunis was over. They needed the support of
France for the conquest of Tripoli, while France wanted to get Italy’s support
Morocco.
c.) Terms (to be kept secret)
- France agreed to freedom of action by Italy in Tripoli.
- Italy agreed to freedom of action by France in Morocco.
- Italy agreed to remain neutral in any war in which France was involved.
d.) Results
- It revealed the weakness of the Triple Alliance because Italy’s promise to France
was contradictory to her obligations to the Triple Alliance.
- When World War I broke out, Italy remained neutral and later declared war on
Germany and Austria.
H. Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902
a.) Background
i.) Britain’s policy of ‘Splendid Isolation” -- Since 1823, Britain had adopted the
policy of non-intervention in continental affairs unless Britain interests there
were challenged. But German threat to its naval superiority and Russian
expansion in E. Asia was a threat to the British sphere of influence in China.
These made the policy no longer practical.
ii.) By 1902, it was impossible for Britain to ally with Germany (German refusal of
Britain offer of an alliance, Anglo-German conflicts over naval and industrial
supremacy, German opposition to the British in the Boer Wars), nor with France
(Anglo-French conflicts in Egypt, central Africa, S.E. Asia and S. China), nor
with Russia (Anglo-Russian conflicts in Persia, China and Afghanistan).
iii.) A.J.P. Taylor points out that Britain was afraid of naval cooperation between
France and Germany in the Far East, the possibility of which was strengthened
by the Triple Intervention of 1895. Britain then wanted the Japanese to
coordinate with Britain navy in the Far East. (This proposal was rejected by
Japan.)
iv.) Japan urgently needed British help to keep France neutral in her future war with
Russia.
v.) Japan also aimed to increase its world power status.
b.) Terms
15
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
-
Britain agreed to support Japan in a war in the Far East if it was against 2
powers.
- renew the alliance for 5 years.
c.) Results
i.) It was a catalyst to the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-5.
ii.) Although Britain was still isolated in Europe, the end of her “splendid isolation”
policy as marked by this alliance paved the way for her search for an ally in
Europe subsequently.
I.
Entente Cordiale (Anglo-French Entente), 1904
a.) Background
i.) After the Fashoda Incident 1898, France withdrew all of their claims to
Egyptian Sudan and opened negotiations for a broad compromise of other
dispute with Britain.
ii.) After the failure of the Anglo-German Entente (1900) and the death of Queen
Victoria (1901), who was the grandmother of the German Kaiser and was
affectionate for Germany, Britain was eager to find allies to counterbalance the
economic, political and particularly naval challenge of Germany.
b.) Terms
- Anglo-French colonial conflicts in Africa and S.E. Asia were settled.
- Britain was allowed a free hand in Egypt.
- France was allowed a free hand in Morocco, provided that no fortifications
should be erected menacing Gibraltar.
c.) Results
i.) The Entente was in no sense an alliance nor was it anti-German in intention. It
was merely an understanding reached by the two countries.
ii.) The Kaiser wanted to prove its invalidity and deliberately provoked the
Moroccan Crises (1905-1911), which strengthened the Anglo-French
collaboration and led to Military Conversations (1906-14). But no treaty of
alliance was signed until after the outbreak of war in 1914.
iii.) It paved the way for the Anglo-Russian Entente.
J.
Anglo-Russian Understanding and the Triple Entente, 1907
a.) Background
i.) After the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, Russian ambitions in the Far East
had been checked. This removed the British fear of Russian expansion in Asia.
ii.) It was necessary for Russia to have peace and money to recover from the chaos.
An entente with Britain would achieve both purposes.
iii.) Britain’s close relationship with Russia’s ally, France, prepared for the end of
Anglo-Russian colonial conflicts in the Far East and Afghanistan.
b.) Terms
16
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
i.) The Entente established a Russian sphere of influence in northern Persia and a
British sphere in the south.
ii.) Russia agreed to withdraw from Afghanistan.
iii.) Both agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet.
c.) Results and significance
i.) Though it was never so close as the Anglo-French Entente, the Entente opened
the London money market to Russia and helped Russian recovery from the
chaos of the years 1904-5.
ii.) It was anti-German only in the sense that it sought to prevent German
penetration of the Middle East and to end German attempts to exacerbate
Anglo-Russian relations. G.K. Trevelyan states that “it gave to the German
public the sense of being ‘encircled’ ”.
iii.) The Anglo-Russian Entente, together with the Franco-Russian Entente,
completed a three way power bloc of Britain, France and Russia. In time, this
bloc became known as the Triple Entente.
iv.) The Triple Entente was only a settlement of differences. The Entente Powers did
not form a military alliance until after the outbreak of World War I.
v.) By 1907, Europe had been divided into two opposing camps. Opposed to the
Triple Entente stood the Triple Alliance of Austria, Germany and Italy. An
equilibrium of power appeared.
3. Role of the alliance system in the outbreak of World War I
a.) The division of Europe into 2 camps did not necessarily make for war. It only made it
inevitable that any conflict involving 2 great powers would bring general war. The
Alliance system operated to convert a local dispute between Austria and Serbia into a
general war. After 1890, Germany was diplomatically more isolated. The only reliable
ally was Austria. Consequently, Germany was forced to support Austria
unconditionally even at the danger of war. In 1914, when Russia intervened on behalf
of Serbia, Germany felt obliged to come to the help of Austria. France had close ties
with Russia. Believing in a Franco-Russian military alliance, Germany declared war
on both France and Russia.
b.) Since the terms of the alliance were usually kept secret, the contents were never fully
known, but always suspected. This lack of precise knowledge intensified fear,
uncertainty and suspicion.
c.) The alliance system did increase international tension and therefore the possibility of
war. As Europe was divided into two armed camps after 1907, international problems
could not be dealt with on their own merits, but were treated rather as tests of the
relative strength of each side and of the loyalty of the members of each side. Such a
system of alliances seems almost to guarantee a success of crises likely to produce
war, since it made peaceful settlement difficult if not impossible. Yet some
17
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
considerations modify this conclusion. The groups did not always operate as solid
blocks at a crisis, while between crises tension eased considerably and allowed
rapprochements between members of different groups. e.g. The Franco-Russian
Alliance was no obstacle to the maintenance of good relations with Berlin and Vienna.
Indeed, Russia embarked on several years of harmonious cooperation with Austria in
Balkan affairs and with Germany. Besides, in the crisis over Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1908, France displayed restraint and gave no encouragement to Russia.
d.) Some historians such as A.J.P. Taylor feel that the importance of the Alliance System
should not be overemphasized. Taylor points out that generally speaking, the system
was defensive rather than aggressive. A power concluded an alliance to strengthen its
status quo so that its rival dared not declare war on it first. Alliances were intended to
be guarantors of the status quo. Neither side had initiated them with the idea of using
them in an offensive war. The idea was to avoid war rather than provoking war.
J. Joll argues that “The alliance system before 1914 worked when the alliances
corresponded to strategic and political needs, and failed to influence policy when the
common interests were not present.” It was precarious “none of the Powers acted
according to the letter of their commitments.”
There were many weaknesses of the alliances, the fundamental one being the
instability of the two alliances:
i.) Italy did not act according to her commitment in the Triple Alliance: signing
secret agreements with France and Russia 1902 and 1909, and remaining neutral
when World War I broke out.
ii.) In the Bosnian Crisis of 1908, Britain and France did not support Russia.
iii.) The formation of the Triple Entente did not hinder rapprochement between
Britain and Germany. e.g. Britain reached agreement with Germany over the
Baghdad Railway. Besides, the Russian imperialists were still offended by
British policy in Persia, especially in its pursuit of oil concessions. They would
gladly have swung on to an anti-British course, if Germany had given them
security at the Straits. G.M. Trevelyan argues that at no moment was Britain
“willing to convert the Entente with France and Russia into Alliance …
Everyone … was unwilling to decide beforehand what her action would be until
the actual occasion should arise.”
Not all powers entered the WWI as a result of their commitment to the
alliances. Britain declared war on Germany not because of the Triple Entente,
but because the Belgian neutrality guaranteed by the Treaty of London (1839)
was violated. Italy declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, her former
allies, after the Entente Powers had promised her territorial concessions.
From 1871-1914, the peace of Europe was maintained by the combination
of alliances and armaments. In the crises before 1914 governments did not take
18
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
the plunge because they were not ready for war and not assured of support in
Europe for an indefinite time ahead. So the alliance system originally served the
case of peace, rather than the cause of war.
Militarism and Armaments race as a cause of war
1. Definition
Militarism is a policy of always being prepared for war and ready to use force in
order to gain advantages over the states. It is a belief in war or the use of armed force in
the directing of a nation’s affair at home and abroad. The glorification of war inevitably
leads to armaments.
2. Background
a.) After the 1848 Revolutions, realpolitik was universally accepted. Bismarck’s
motto -- ‘Blood and iron’ -- was so popular that the Powers believed arms were
the most effective means to solve disputes.
b.) It was generally believed in Europe that strong armaments together with constant
training of a strong army were indispensable for national security and to preserve
peace.
c.) In order to achieve nationalism which emphasizes national glory and greatness,
the used of arms was inevitable.
d.) The acquisition of colonies was usually backed up by arms. Colonial possessions
also had to be protected by strong navy.
e.) Britain was determined to preserve her naval supremacy at all cost, the key to her
status as a world power, while Germany was determined to wrest the mastery of
the seas from Great Britain.
f.) A.J.P. Taylor pinpoints the German Constitution of 1871, by which the General
Staff was directly responsible to the Kaiser. When the Kaiser adopted the ‘World
Politics’, no Reichstag nor Chancellor could check the militaristic tendencies. W.
Carr says “because Chancellor and Reichstag were at loggerheads, military
advisers were certainly able to exert undue influence on the course of German
policy.” After 1912, the defence of Germany against France and Russia became
the overriding priority, leading to “an increase in the influence of the military
leaders, the advocates of preventive war, the corridors of power.” W. Carr also
regards German militarism as the “one last remedy” to solve “the internal political
deadlock” because a victorious war would rally the forces of conservatism and
keep socialism at bay.
g.) The sprit of militarism was further reinforced by some contemporary arguments.
e.g. War was “a condition of progress”, “the sting which prevents a country from
going to sleep”, and “a necessity to preserve the mainly and adventurous qualities
in a nation.” Such arguments undoubtedly strengthened the position of those who
19
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
believed in armaments and war as the methods of solving a nation’s problems.
3. The armaments race
a.) After 1870, everyone one of Europe’s chief powers, except Britain, adopted
conscription and universal military training.
b.) By 1914, all of the Powers spent a great proportion of their budgets on military
purposes. Military expenditures rose at an unprecedented rate between 1870 and
1914. At the beginning of 1914, they stood at 300% of what they had been in
1870. Imperial Germany made the greatest single increase in armaments. Every
major power had a large standing army as well as millions of trained reserves
among the civilian population.
c.) Large conscript armies naturally increased the responsibility and the importance
of professional soldiers. In some European countries such as Russia, Germany
and Austria, military men exercised more power than civilian authorities during
time of crises. This is a dangerous trend.
d.) There were reorganization of armies and methods of supply, the building of
strategic railways and canals, and the improvements in communication.
e.) New and more deadly weapons were invented (e.g. land-mines and machine guns),
new strategies investigated and many military schools and research institutes
established.
f.) Competition in armaments increased its momentum when Germany after 1898
started to copy the British by building a formidable battle fleet. Alarmed by the
growth of German sea power, Britain tried hard to keep up her naval superiority.
Keen naval rivalries between Britain and Germany strained their relations.
g.) In order to avoid the danger of a two-front war, Germany devised the Schlieffen
Plan which aimed at the rapid defeat of France and then transferring German
troops to defeat Russia in the east.
4. Role
a.) Armaments were first intended to prevent war. It was believed that national
security depended on the extent on military preparedness. Indeed, the great
armaments helped to keep the peace -- so long as they were not used.
b.) After the failure of the Hague Disarmaments Conferences (1899 and 1907),
(i) The First Hague Conference (1899)
- by Nicholas II of Russia
- Result -- The creation of permanent court of international arbitration to
settle disputes.
(ii) The Second Hague Conference (1907)
- by President Theodore Roosevelt of U.S.
- Result -- The Permanent Court of Arbitration was strengthened and it
speeded up arms race.
20
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
the armaments races of created much tension in Europe and made international
situation explosive. They generated hatred, suspicions, and constant dread on
every side. Europeans everywhere lived under the threat of a sudden attack from
rival nation. This kind of fear, thus stimulated, was in itself conducive to war.
c.) As a result of militarism, military men exercised more power than civilian
authorizes in countries like Germany, Austria and Russia. In Germany, no
Chancellor nor Reichstag could check the militaristic tendencies. Military
advisers could exert undue influence on the course of German policy. The military
men in Europe in 1914 had dictated their policies to their governments. Even the
English and French General Staff had total power over their armies. There was no
need to consult the Parliament. The politicians were not allowed to discuss
military matters. Lloyd George said there was no one to tell the British parliament
about the sending of army into France.
d.) Germany, who could have had Britain as her ally, had in fact turned Britain to the
French arms as a result of her challenging British naval supremacy.
e.) Emboldened by military build-up, the Powers were confident of their military
preparedness. So they were less inclined to make sacrifice for peace. This
increased the danger of war.
f.) When World War I broke out, the Powers entered the war with light hearts
because they believed that they were militarily superior to their enemies and that
the war would be easily won within a few months.
The Internal Politics of the Great Powers
The system of alliances and armaments race made war more probable, what made it
inevitable was the character and policy of the leaders in various countries and also the
state of their internal politics.
1. Germany
Since the fall of Bismarck, there had been no effective coordination of the various
departments of the German government. Neither Bulow nor Bethman-Hollweg were
dominating chancellors. In the lack of coordination, the Army became the only coherent
force in Germany. The issue of peace and war was to be decided by the army acting only
on military considerations as to the best time to fight and aiming only at the purely
military aim of victory. The decision on war also came as a result of the aggressiveness of
the greater part of German public opinion, an aggressiveness which was the result of a
short history of brilliant successes based on forceful realpolitik.
2. Russia and Austria
The situation was as chaotic, if not more so. Here diplomacy was subject to the same
internal strains and difficulties.
3. France
21
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
The short-lived ministries of the Third Republic did not make for a coherent policy,
while the restlessness of public opinion, the violence of opposition, and economic and
industrial disorder created further complications.
Crises Preceding the War
Between 1905 and1913, several serious international crises endangered the peace of
Europe. The general causes of the war can be seen acting in the crises preceding the war.
In a sense the crises were not so much causes of First World War but rather symptoms of
international conflicts. Yet, each of them left behind an atmosphere of suspicion and
bitterness that made a general war very probable.
1. The Moroccan Crises (1905, 1911)
a.) The First crisis, 1905
i.) Morocco was a Moslem state in N.W. Africa ruled by the Sultan. It was
strategically important because it was situated south of Gibraltar and controlled
the route from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. It was also supposedly rich in
mineral resources and trading opportunities. By the beginning of the 20th C, it was
one of the few places in Africa that were still independent. Both Germany and
France wanted to penetrate there.
ii.) Having concluded a series of agreements with Italy (1902), Britain and Spain
(1904), France by the beginning of 1905 was ready to add Morocco to her North
African Empire.
iii.) Although Germany had earlier stated that she had no interest in Morocco, she
wanted to demonstrate to France, by insisting on the independence of Morocco,
that the Anglo-French Entente was of no permanent diplomatic value. So in 1905,
when Kaiser William II visited Tangier, Morocco’s chief port, he declared
Germany’s support for the Moroccans.
iv.) The Germans demanded an international conference on Morocco. The Algeciras
Conference was then held in 1906.
v.) By the Act of Algeciras of 1906, France and Spain were to police Morocco and
the Sultan of Morocco’s authority should be respected. France gained more
because the French were given a dominant role in the administration of the
country and control over its finance.
vi.) The close collaboration of Britain and France strengthened the Anglo-French
Entente. Consequently, military cooperation between the two countries was
discussed.
vii.) During the Conference, both Britain and Russia supported France, thus leading
to the Triple Entente.
viii.) Since only Austria-Hungary supported Germany in the crisis, Germany was
more determined than ever before to have Austria as her only reliable ally, and
22
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
German supported to Austria-Hungary then encouraged the latter to take more
ambitious measures in the Balkans.
ix.) It was diplomatic defeat for Germany. Having suffered from diplomatic isolation,
Germany decided to revenge on France in due course. The Second Moroccan
Crisis (1911) resulted.
b.) The Second Moroccan Crisis, 1911
i.) There was revolt in Morocco. The Sultan asked France for help. France then sent
troops to Fez, the capital.
ii.)The German gunboat, Panther was sent to Agadir, allegedly to protect German
interests menaced by French expansion in Morocco.
iii.)Britain was alarmed at this exercise of German naval power so close to Gibraltar
and her vital trade route and feared that Agadir would become a German naval
base. Britain supported France by giving a strong warning to Germany and by
preparing her fleet.
iv.)Faced with British opposition, the Germans finally gave way all its privileges in
Morocco and agreed to recognize France to establish a protectorate over most of
the country, in return for the cession of two strings of territory in the French
Congo. It was German second diplomatic defeat.
c.) Significance -- The crises strengthened the ties between Germany and Austria on
the one hand, and France, Britain and Russia on the other. The confrontation
between the two camps became apparent. The crises also intensified Germany’s
hostility with France and Britain. Besides, the gunboat policy speeded up the
armaments race.
2. Bosnian Crisis, 1908
a.) Bosnia-Herzegovina was occupied by the Turks in the 15th C. At the Congress of
Berlin (1878), Austria was given the right to administer the provinces, though they
remained part of the Turkish Empire.
b.) The provinces, which were inhabited mainly by Slavs, desired union with Serbia.
c.) As a result of the Greater Serbian movement, Serbia wanted to annex the two
provinces to double Serbian size and to reach the Adriatic Sea: the two places then
became the bone of contention between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
d.) Because of the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, the revolt of the Young Turks
(1908), who endeavored to transform the Ottoman Empire into a constitutional
state with equal rights and suffrage for all subjects, made the Austrians fear that
their control would be challenged. They then formally annexed the provinces in
1908.
e.) The annexation was opposed strongly by Turkey, Serbia and Russia. Serbia
mobilized and was supported by Russia.
23
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
f.) Since Britain was alarmed at Russian ambition over the Straits, she did not agree to
support Russia’s backup of Serbia.
g.) Germany stood firmly by Austria-Hungary and warned Russia not to support
Serbia. Yet she opposed Austria’s plan for a preventive war to settle accounts with
Serbia, and did not allow an Austrian ultimatum to Serbia.
h.) Facing diplomatic isolation, Serbia and Russia (not yet recovered from the defeat
in the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution) were forced to agree to the
Austrian annexation of the two provinces.
i.) Importance -- The Bosnian Crisis showed the great and increasing dangers in the
Balkans. The maintenance of a balance between Russia and Austria in the Balkans
was essential to European peace, especially after 1907 when the European situation
was increasingly tense. In 1908, such a balance was wrecked for good. Austria, by
her annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, had upset this balance. Germany failed to
restrain Austria form an aggressive policy in the Balkans. Her ultimatum to Russia
warning Russia not to support Serbia indicates sharper conflicts between
Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism. Pan-Germanism won a great diplomatic victory.
Germany was bound to give unconditional support to Austria if troubles occurred
in the Balkans again. Austria, emboldened by German support, pursued a more
aggressive policy in the Balkans. As for Serbia, her bitterness against Austria was
intensified. The Serbs living in Bosnia began a terrorist agitation against Austrian
rule which culminated in the Sarajevo incident in 1914. Hence the Bosnian Crisis
brought war nearer.
3. The Balkan Wars (1912, 1913)
a.) The First Balkan War, 1912
i.) In 1912, the Young Turks were attempting to strengthen Turkish control over
Macedonia. The Turkish treatment angered Slavs in the Balkan states and
provided an excuse for war against Turkey. In the meantime, the internal
upheavals and the Tripoli War with Italy (1912) weakened the Turkish position.
Encouraged by Russian diplomacy, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Greece
joined in the Balkan League. The Balkan League then declared war on Turkey.
Turkey was defeated and forced to abandon its remaining European territories,
except Constantinople.
ii.) The League worried Austria-Hungary. To prevent conflicts, the great powers
distributed the conquered territories by the Treaty of London.
iii.) Serbia wanted to gain Albania. However, Austria-Hungary was determined to
prevent Serbia from gaining access to the sea. It obtained the support of
Germany and Britain in making Albania an independent nation.
b.) The Second Balkan War, 1913
24
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
i.) The Treaty of London proved to be very short-lived, for the Balkan states soon
started fighting over the division of the spoils. Bulgaria was dissatisfied with its
share of the conquered territories. Before they started the war, the Serbs and
Bulgarians had by a secret treaty agreed that in case of victory, Eastern
Macedonia was to go to Bulgaria, while Serbia was to get the western part,
together with the much-desired Adriatic coast. When the war over, both Austria
and Italy opposed the transfer of the seacoast territory to Serbia. Austria feared a
powerful Serbia, and Italy had little desire to share the Adriatic coast with a new
rival. Both countries therefore insisting on creating an autonomous Albania that
would include the section of the coast which Serbia wanted. Indignant because
their country had to remain landlocked, the Serbs demanded compensation in
Macedonia form the Bulgarians. There was also a contest between the Greeks
and the Bulgarians for the control of Salonika. But the Bulgarians, having played
a major role in defeating the Turks, refused to give up any part of their
acquisitions.
ii.) In June 1913, Bulgaria attacked the military forces of both Serbia and Greece.
Montenegro also entered the war on the side of Serbia and Greece. They were
soon joined by Rumania who saw an opportunity to get a strip of Bulgarian
territory which she felt should be a part of Rumania. The Turks also joined the
groups, hoping to regain some of the territory they had recently lost. Bulgaria
was soon defeated. It showed the break-up of the Balkan League.
iii.) The Treaty of Bucharest, August 1913
- it divided most of the territory claimed by Bulgaria in Macedonia and
Thrace between Serbia and Greece.
- Bulgaria ceded southern Dobrudja to Rumania.
- Albania became autonomous.
- Turkey regained Adrianople.
iv.) Importance
- The Balkan wars limited Turkey-in-Europe to the area around Adrianople and
Constantinople. The force of nationalism had literally dismembered the
European Turkey of 1815.
- The Turkish success in the second war made Turkey more dependent on
German support.
- Serbia was enlarged. She was embittered by the creation of autonomous
Albania upon the insistence of Austria. As her expansion to the Adriatic was
blocked, her resentment against Austria was increased.
- Austria was greatly alarmed by the expansion of Serbia. She was determined
to crush Serbia in a war.
- Bulgaria was deeply dissatisfied and sought German support in order to
25
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
recover its territorial losses.
- The balance of power in the Balkans was upset as Turkey and Bulgaria sought
German help. So German influence in the Balkans was increased.
- Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism conflicted in the Balkans and aggravate the
situation.
- Nevertheless, the peace conference showed that it proved possible to settle in
a peaceful manner the gravest questions which had arisen in international
affairs since 1877. The settlement showed that even though the general
European situation made war probable, it was not inevitable even as late as
1912-13.
Immediate Cause -- Sarajevo Incident, 1914
1. The assassination of Francis Ferdinand
a.) On 18 June 1914, the Austrian heir-apparent, Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his
wife were shot in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia.
b.) Motives of the assassins:
i.) Though the actual murderer was a Bosnian student named Princip, he was merely
a tool of the Serbian nationalists.
ii.) The conspirators were members of a secret society known as Black Hand.
iii.) Ferdinand was chosen because he was the one responsible for a scheme of
embodying a third unit composed of Slav nationals in his Dual Monarchy to
make it become a Triple Monarchy. This was exactly what the Serbian
nationalists did not want. Therefore they decided to get rid of Ferdinand before
he could become Emperor of Austria-Hungary.
c.) It is generally held that the assassination provided the immediate cause of the First
World War. As stated by W.F. Norton, “the rise of Serbia, the symbol of national
independence to all Slavs, was seen in Vienna as a threat to the survival of the Dual
Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, with its mosaic of racial minorities… Austria-Hungary,
decided to eliminate Serbia in a limited local war.”
2. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia
a.) In the weeks immediately following the assassination, Austrian officials conducted an
investigation which confirmed their suspicion that the plot was of Serbian origin.
b.) Austria-Hungary asked for German support and was assured by the “Blank Cheque”
(unconditional German loyalty to the alliance).
c.) On July 23, Austria sent a harsh ultimatum, demanding that Serbia to reply within 48
hours. It included
- suppress all anti-Austrian societies;
- dismiss all anti-Austrian officials; and
- allow Austrian officials to enter Serbia to ensure that the first 2 demands were
26
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
carried out.
d.) Serbia accepted the first two demands but refused the last one. But she was willing to
settle the problem by international arbitration.
e.) There was a moment of relief, and the Kaiser of Germany thought that now all reason
for war had gone.
f.) The Austrians, however, pronounced it unsatisfactory, cut off diplomatic relations,
and mobilized part of their army.
g.) Serbia also mobilized.
3. Attitude of various Powers
a.) Russia
Russia’s attitude was belligerent. She warned Austria that she would not tolerate any
effort to humiliate Serbia. On July 24, Sazonov, Russian Foreign Minister, exclaimed to
the German ambassador, “I do not hate Austria; I despise her. Austria is seeking a pretext
to gobble up Serbia; but in that case Russia will make war on Austria.”
b.) France
Her attitude was similar to that of Russia. France also warned the Austrian
ambassador that “Serbia has very warm friends in the Russian people. And Russia has an
ally, France.”
c.) Germany
Her attitude was uncertain at first though the Kaiser was shocked by the
assassination. She agreed that Serbia must be punished. Thus on July 6, Germany finally
expressed her support to the Austrians.
4. Outbreak of war
a.) With Germany’s support, Austria finally declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914.
b.) On July 30, Russia ordered for immediate general mobilization.
c.) Alarmed by Russian preparation for war, Germany demanded that mobilization be
ceased within 12 hours.
d.) Russia refused, thus on August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia.
e.) In the meantime, Premier Viviani of France also ordered mobilization. On August 3,
Germany declared war on France.
4. Britain’s entry into the war
a.) Britain’s attitude towards the crisis vacillated in the beginning. Opinion in the
government was divided.
b.) Sir Edward Grey and Winston Churchill advocated a positive stand on the side of
France and Russia while others were less enthusiastic about intervention in
Continental quarrels.
c.) It was not until the invasion of Belgium by German force that Britain declared war on
Germany. The reasons behind this were:
- Britain was one of the big powers that signed a treaty guaranteeing the neutrality
27
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
of Belgium in the Treaty of London, 1839.
-
More important was the fact that Britain did not want any powerful nation to
dominate the Low Countries, lying directly across the English Channel.
d.) On August 4, Britain demanded that Germany respect Belgian neutrality. When
Germany refused, Britain declared war on Germany.
Who or What was responsible?
I. Serbia
1. Serbian nationalism was primarily responsible for the assassination of Ferdinand.
The greater Serbia movement, her expansion and propaganda all posed a serious
threat to the Austria Empire.
2. Serbia was aware of the assassination plot three weeks before it was executed. Yet,
she failed to take effective steps to prevent the assassins from crossing over from
Serbia to Bosnia, and then failed to give Austria any warning or information
which might have averted the fatal crime.
3. She expected her reply to the Austrian ultimatum would not be regarded as
satisfactory and even before it was given, ordered mobilization of Serbian army.
4. Yet, according to A.J.P. Taylor, Serbia did not desire war in 1914.
a.) “Far from being encouraged by Serbia, still less acting under Serb orders, their
(the assassins of Archduke Ferdinand) activities were most unwelcome to the
Serb government.”
b.) “Serbia was just recovering from the Balkan wars of the previous years; she
had not absorbed her new lands” obtained in 1912 and 1913.
c.) “War with Austria-Hungary was the very last thing that the Serb Government
wanted.”
II. Russia and France
1. Russia was partly responsible for the Austro-Serbian conflict because of the
frequent encouragement which she had given at Belgrade -- that Serbian national
unity would be ultimately achieved with Russian assistance at Austrian expense.
2. The Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 was transformed into an offensive
organization following 1912 through the cooperation of Izvolski and Poincare.
Both recognized the seizure of the Straits and the return of Alsace-Lorraine could
be realized only through a general European war. The aims of the 2 groups could
not be achieved without war. The French wished to recover Alsace-Lorraine from
the Germans, the Russians wished to open the way to the Straits to control the
Balkans, and to free the Slavs from German, Austrian and Turkish domination. As
stated by A.J.P. Taylor. “The Russians fought to preserve the free passage of the
Straits, on which their economic life depended.” This ambition intensified
Russo-German clashes.
28
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
3. French revenge spirit on Germany poisoned European diplomacy and politics.
She also failed to exert any moderating influence on Russia, who was preparing
for a general mobilization in July 1914.
4. Russia and France after learning the ultimatum began the dual program of a
diplomatic barrage combined with the secret military preparations. While Russia
mobilized her troops, French troops were ordered home from Morocco. “The
Russian mobilization undertaken with the full connivance of France was ordered
at a time when diplomatic negotiations were moving rapidly towards a
satisfactory settlement.” Russian general mobilization not only initiated military
hostilities, but was also a reason for the failure of diplomatic efforts to prevent a
general war in Europe.
A.J.P. Taylor argues that Russian general mobilization “was not an act of war
-- the Russian armies could not be ready for at least 6 weeks. It was a further
gesture of diplomatic -- a warning that Russia would not stand aside.” However,
general mobilization was interpreted by military men in every country that it was
on the point of making war. This rendered peaceful settlement less likely. General
mobilization of continental armies took place in the following order: Serbia,
Russia, Austria, France and Germany. So Russia was the first Power that initiated
military hostilities.
III. Austria
1. Austrian expansions in the Balkans intensified the direct confrontation between
Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism.
2. Austria was more responsible for the immediate origin of the war than any other
Power because she was determined to crush Serbia war: a gamble on a local war
turned out to be a general war. Emperor Francis Joseph told William II that
“Serbia must be eliminated as a political factor in the Balkans … friendly
settlement is no longer to be thought of.” There is no doubt that the Austrian
diplomats neither desired nor expected a simple acceptance of their ultimatum.
They wanted to teach a lesson to Serbia.
IV. Germany
1. The emergence of Germany upset the balance of power in Europe.
a) The emergence of Germany as an industrial and naval power challenged the
supremacy of Britain and intensified Anglo-German hostility.
b) As argued by A.J.P. Taylor, the breakdown of the balance of power contributed
to the disaster in 1914. There had been a European balance and peace that
followed it. But balance broke down when Russia was weakened by the war
with Japan and Germany got in the habit of trying to get her way by threats. But
later Russia recovered. Both France and Russia insisted on being treated as
equals as Germany. The German action in 1914 revealed that Germany aimed at
29
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
complete military domination of Europe. When Germany sent an ultimatum to
France demanding unconditional neutrality, France would have to enter the war
unless she was prepared to abdicate as a great power.
c) President Wilson of the USA asserted that the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine
“poisoned the public life of Europe for 40 years.” Taylor further argued that
since 1871 the French were determined to revenge on the Germans.
Franco-German hostility was party responsible for Germany’s alliance system,
the Schlieffen Plan, and invasion on France via Belgium.
d) The alliance system devised by Bismarck complicated European diplomacy and
politics.
e) The “Iron and Blood” policy accelerated the armaments race.
2. Germany did not restrain the ambition of Austria. On the contrary; she firmly
stood by its alliance with Austria-Hungary, whose ambitions over the Balkans
were thus encouraged. Without the expressed belief of the German soldiers that if
a general war came they would win it and win it quickly. Austria would have had
to act with Europe. In 1914, the “Blank Cheque” to Austria ensured unconditional
German support to Austria, who then deliberately sent an unacceptable ultimatum
to Serbia.
3. After 1912, Germany’s leaders were more inclined towards warlike solutions than
the leaders of other countries on account of internal political deadlock. i.e.
Germany’s made use of a general war to silence socialist opposition at home. In
1914, the General Staff believed, “If war must break out, better now than in one
or two years’ time, when the Entente will be stronger.” The Germans did not fix
on war for August 1914, but they welcomed it when the occasion offered. They
thought they could win it at the present moment when they were at the height of
their strength.
4. In 1905, the Schlieffen Plan, operational plan for war with France, was completed.
For a final victory, German strategists considered it necessary to first knock out
France, which involved moving German armies through Belgium. They planned
to defeat France in 6 weeks and then turn against France. Russia before she was
fully prepared. Such plans pointed not to a localized war, but a general war.
5. Germany’s invasion on Belgium, which violated the country’s neutrality
guaranteed by international treaty of 1839, silenced the British neutralists who
accounted for ‘half the Cabinet’ and provided Britain an excuse to go to war as a
united country.
6. Kaiser William II was responsible too because of “his lack of finesses and skill in
diplomacy in years from 1890 to 1914, the vague threats of force, which caused
fear, suspicion and uncertainty. The failure in diplomacy led him to sanction the
use of force against Serbia.”
30
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
7. However, some historians have defended Germany.
a.) E. Brandenburg argues that in 1914, Germany did not want war. “Had Germany
wanted war, no more favorable time could have found than during and after the
Russo-Japanese War.” Russia was weak and the Triple Entente was not vet
founded. That Germany was inactive in the mid-1900s proves that she did not
want war.
b.) W. Carr points out that when the ‘Blank Cheque’ was promised, William II only
wanted to threaten Serbia to yield and, at worst, expected ‘only a limited local
conflict.’ Even on July 31, 1914 the German Chancellor advised the AustrianHungarian Foreign Minister “to act, with restraint and not to give the signal for
war.”
c.) S. B. Fay defends Germany by saying that “Germany did not plot a European
war, did not want one, and made genuine, though too belated efforts, to avert
one. She was the victim of her alliance with Austria and of her own folly
because “Austria was her only dependable ally”, and Germany’s geographical
position between France and Russia, and her inferiority in number of troops”
forced Germany to crush France within 6 weeks before her campaign against
Russia.
V. Britain
1. During the Sarajevo Crisis, Britain failed to exert her influence over Russia and
France to solve the deadlock, diplomatically. Lord Grey had made proposals for
discussion and compromise but all were rejected.
2. Britain did not warn Russia against mobilization.
3. Britain believed that an Austrian-German victory in the struggle would establish a
German ascendancy in Europe which would be dangerous for Britain. However,
they could not announced Britain solidarity with Russia and France because it
would be rejected by the majority of the country. So limited commitment was
given to France secretly. It was not until Germany declared war on Russia and
France that Britain gave the promise that she would protect the northern coast of
France. Yet without the violation of Belgian neutrality, the British government
could not persuade the British people to accept intervention in the war.
VI. Zilliacus’s Economic and Social Interpretations
1. The pursuit of profits by financial capital was the chief social dynamic behind the
drive for imperialism, protectionism, and armaments.
2. There could be no solution of that difficulty so long as economic life was based
on the private profit-seeking motive, which exercised a decisive political
influence. People accepted the economic foundation of society apart of nature and
private profit seeking motives as almost divinely inspired.
3. The main current ran strongly in the direction of more and more economic
31
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
nationalism, imperialism and war preparations.
4. The governing class clung to their privileges and power at any cost to the
suffering people and to the wider interests of peace and civilization.
VII. No one wanted war; all accepted it.
1. None of the Powers wanted a European War. However distrust was at a peak and
ruling circles were dominated by the idea that war was inevitable. Each one
accused the other of aggressive intentions; each accepted the risk of war and saw
hopes of security in the alliance system and the development of armaments.
2. Britain regarded the war as “an idealist crusade to save Belgium and liberty of
Western Europe.”
3. The Russians accepted the war as “a war of defence against centuries-old
Teutonic aggression.
4. War was accepted by the citizens of each country not only as a necessity forced on
them against their will, but also a moment of emotional release and of
warm-hearted national solidarity. Moreover, most of the belligerent countries
faced long-term political problems from which war seemed to provide a
temporary relief. People in Europe were inclined to think that war world stave off
their social and political problems. Everyone supposed that decisive battles would
be fought at once and a dictated peace would follow.
5. Europeans’ universal, immediate enthusiastic support to the war illustrate that no
single nation was solely responsible for the war. Yet, every belligerent country
was to a greater or lesser extent, responsible because each contributed the general
deterioration in the international situation and committed errors in June and July
1914.
Responsibility For War
Historians have been trying to answer the question which country was most
responsible for provoking the First World War. There are different views with regard to
the degree of responsibility shared by each country. No country should be blamed solely
for causing the First World War.
Serbia was directly responsible for the war when she rejected the Austrian
ultimatum in July 1914. But if she had accepted the ultimatum totally, she would have
lost her independence and become an Austrian protectorate. Moreover, Serbia had reason
to believe that she could count on Russian support, as Russia had claimed to be the
protector of the Slav peoples in the Balkan peninsula.
Austria-Hungary was the obvious aggressor in 1914, as she was the first power to
send an ultimatum to another state and the first to declare war when the ultimatum was
rejected. Her motives was to remove the threat of the South Slav national movement led
by Serbia, and to expand the empire to the Aegean Sea. But Austria-Hungary alone would
32
AL The First World War (1914-1918)
not have been confident to face a war with Russia if she had not received the German
promise of unlimited support. Austria-Hungary decided on the issue of a harsh ultimatum
to Serbia only after she had received the ‘blank cheque’ from Germany.
Germany has been blamed for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was Bismarck who
started the practice of forming secret treaties and alliances, which eventually divided the
European powers into two rival camps. Secondly, it was the Kaiser’s tactless and
aggressive foreign policy that upset the peace carefully maintained by Bismarck, drove
France, Russia, and Britain into an opposing camp, created ‘war scare’ in South Africa
and Morocco, and turned the friendly ententes into real alliances. Thirdly, it was the
Kaiser’s ‘blank cheque’ that greatly encouraged Austria-Hungary to go ahead with her
plans of crushing Serbia. Fourthly, it was Germany that turned the local Austro-Serbian
conflict into a general European war by her ultimatums to Russia and France, and her
declaration of war on those two powers shortly after, which made any compromise
impossible. Germany’s fault lay in her over-eagerness to support her only reliable ally in
Europe. Austria-Hungary, and in her over-confidence in winning a short and decisive war
over the Entente powers.
Russia was the first big power in Europe to mobilize her troops against another big
power, Austria-Hungary. Her action was bound to alarm Germany, whose military
planners followed the Schlieffen Plan too closely and thought that German troops must
move to attack France as soon as possible before turning eastward to fight the Russians.
Thus they urged the Kaiser to declare war quickly, making any compromise impossible.
France had no direct interests in the Balkans, but she was involved in 1914 because
of her military alliance with Russia. Though France had always hoped to recover
Alsace-Lorraine, she did not enter war in 1914 for Alsace-Lorraine. When she was
attacked by German troops, she had no choice but to fight back.
Britain has been blamed for not making her intention to enter war on the
Franco-Russian side clearer, which might have prevented Germany form taking rash
actions. But Britain had no strong excuse to enter until the Germans violated the
neutrality of Belgium. Britain entered war not only for a ‘scrap of paper’ (Treaty of
London, 1839) but to prevent German control of the Channel ports which would
endanger her own security.
33