origins of the 1st ww

8/13/2019 Origins of the 1st WW

1/10

Aditya Ramesh

5731

MODERN EUROPE-TUTORIAL NO.3Q: Discuss the Origins of the First World WarThe outbreak of the First World War is one of the most controversial and debatedsubjects in history. The immediate origins of the war can be seen in terms of the crisis following the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to theAustro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo, Bosnia on 28th June 1914. Austria, who believed Serbia was behind this, sent a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia on 23rd July, which was not accepted in its entirety. Following a series of diplomatic maneuvers including Russian mobilization, Germany finally declared war on Russia on1st August, leading to the First World War. However, in order to understand thecontext which allowed this crisis to precipitate into a World War, we need to review the conditions in Europe in the preceding decades.It was S.B. Fay, who had first propounded the concept of long-term and short-term causes to explain the origin of WWI. According to him, it was five causes thatbrought about this war: the principle of Imperialism; system of alliances; Nationalism; rise of militarism and Newspapers and the role of the press in promoting war like conditions.Imperialism as a phenomenon had existed since the 15th century. But post 1870, imperialism had undergone a qualitative departure from its earlier forms in terms

of scope, intensity and consequences. It was no longer confined to Asia or theAmericas but every single part of the world had come under the scanner of the colonial powers. The unification of Italy and Germany and the rise of new powers like USA and Japan had led to new entrants in this race for colonies. This had created the belief that the balance of power had to be regarded as a worldwide question and not one limited to Europe alone. In fact, it was this imperialist rivalry between nations that had intensified and antagonized relations between countries, thereby, giving rise to war like conditions. Moreover, the world had reached a saturation point by the beginning of the 20th century in which no new colonies were available for colonization and war seemed to be the only viable optionto overcome this problem and to ensure the redistribution of the colonies.Different interpretations have been given to explain this imperialist expansion.Among the earliest theories explaining imperialism were those that linked new i

mperialism with economic factors and saw imperialism as arising out of modern capitalism. It was the need to look for new avenues for investment, fresh marketsand cheaper sources of raw materials to overcome the saturation that was plaguing Europe that forced the European powers to divide the world between them (Lenin). The result was increased rivalry as an intense scramble for colonies had started and thus, imperialism necessarily led to war.Extra-economic origins have also been mentioned for the rise of Imperialism. TheCambridge School, for instance, believed that it was motivated mostly by strategic and not by economic factors. When the newly risen countries like Germany and Italy began to carve out spheres of influences for themselves, Great Britain was greatly alarmed as it did not want to be left behind and thus, plunged into the partition of Africa as well. Others have emphasized military and strategic factors, such as the need to secure defensible frontiers. Military factors however

cannot be seen as divorced from economic considerations of even questions of national prestige.Many have also seen cultural factors in the rise of imperialism. Many colonial ventures began as missionary activity and the desire of the Christian missionaries to convert the heathen led to the establishment of centres of European influence in remote parts of the world. This was related also to the European sense ofsuperiority and these ideas in conjunction with the civilizing mission of the Christian faith served as a justification for imperialism. This can be related tothe concepts of the White Mans Burden and the moral imperative for empire. An urge for scientific discovery and exploration of unknown territory also helped to o


2/10

pen up Africa.In the 1870s, imperialism was focused mainly in Africa and East Asia. In 1885 Bismarck organized a Conference at Berlin, which culminated in the Treaty of Berlin where it was decided that the Great Powers would now have spheres of influence,in Africa and China and territories would be divided peacefully. The impact of this treaty was immediately felt in Africa leading to the Scramble for Africa. In roughly 15 years, almost the entire the continent with the exception of Liberia,Ethiopia and the two Boer Republics was divided between the European powers. Bythe early 20th century imperialist rivalries among the European powers were amply evident. There were six major disputes: (1) B/w Britain and France over Egypt;(2) B/w England & Germany over South Africa; (3) B/w England and Russia over Persia and Afghanistan; (4) B/w Russia and Japan over China; (5) B/w Germany and Russia over the Balkans and (6) B/w Germany and France over Morocco. Each countrywas not willing to let go of its influence or interest in these regions and wanted to cling on to the areas as strongly as possible. As a result all these situations had become extremely intense and brought the two warring countries on thebrink of war against each other.James Joll writes that there were three ways in which the imperialist movement directly affected the relations between the European states and contributed to the atmosphere which made war possible. Firstly, the international alignments adopted over colonial questions often cut across the pattern of international relations that had emerged in Europe itself in the years after the Franco-Prussian war. Secondly, specific agreements on particular colonial questions sometimes led to a more general entente, as in the case of Britains settlement of outstanding co

lonial disputes with France and Russia. Thirdly, the colonial rivalries and armsrace which accompanied them affected the whole of international life, encouraging doctrines of racial superiority and giving support to the crude evolutionarytheories which interpreted the relations between states in terms of the strugglefor survival, by then widely accepted as governing the world of nature. Therefore if we look for a link between imperialist rivalries and World War I, we see that it was only indirect. With the rapid growth of colonial empires in the late19th century, nationalism itself came to be defined in terms of colonial assetsand imperialism. Alliances only came into play when the final conflict erupted in 1914.Konne Zilliacus argued that no European nation went to war in 1914 due to treatyobligations, moral issues or the rights of small nations, but to defend imperialist interests, which consisted of the private interests of finance and monopoly

capital. However, the point to be noted however is that virtually all these rivalries had been dealt with before 1914 and some sort of peace had been established between the warring countries, and therefore one cannot make a direct link between imperialist rivalries and the First World War. It should also be noted that there was no linear one-to-one relationship between colonial rivalries and cooperative alliances. Britain and French relations within and outside the Europeancontinent illustrate this dichotomy well as do the Russian and British relations. However, the rivalry in the Balkans, as we shall see later, could not subsidethat easily and it was this region that provided the immediate background to WWI.Closely linked to the question of imperialism was that of the system of alliances that had been formed between the European nations. The outbreak of war is a question related to the balance of power. In the years preceding the First World W

ar, a number of alliances had emerged and Europe was divided into two mutually hostile and armed power blocks. Traditionally the outbreak of the war is viewed as a chain reaction, whereby Europe was fated to war due to these alliances.After 1870 Germany, France, Britain, Austria-Hungary and Russia were undoubtedlythe great powers of Europe, with Italy staking a claim to be regarded as one ofthem. The balance of power in Europe consisted in the shifting balance betweenthem and in the various alignments they adopted. It is important to note that atthis point of time Britain was following a policy of splendid isolationism andher interests lay primary outside of Europe particularly to protect her Asian possessions. It is for this reason that she had feared the Russian expansion eastw


3/10

ards into Persia and Afghanistan. The annexation of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany following the Franco-Prussian War had made it clear that France would never side with Germany in case of any international alignment. Germany, on the other hand, had emerged as the leading industrialized nation following the mid-19th century, which was further strengthened by its unification. It was the emergence ofsuch a strong, industrial and united nation that made it imperative for the Germans to assume an important role in the sphere of international politics.The origins of the alliance system as was seen in the years preceding the war can be traced to Bismarcks foreign policy in his years as the imperial chancellor of Germany between 1870 and 1890. What was different about this policy of alliances was that earlier alliances were only made before wars and lasted through theduration of the war. The alliances that Bismarck envisioned were to be forged inpeacetime with no immediate prospect of war for reasons of security. The reasons for Bismarcks policy were largely pragmatic. Bismarck wanted to maintain a balance of power in Europe between the five Great Powers Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria and France in order in order to safeguard German interests against a hostile coalition. Ever since the time of the France-Prussian war he had feared a possible attack from France and thus, wished to safeguard himself against that. Thus, he especially sought to isolate France. Always try to be one of the three ina world of five great powers, was the maxim on which his foreign policy was based. Moreover, he considered Germany to be a satiated power, which was in no mood to expand or impose upon any other countrys sovereignty. His foremost concern wasto protect the frontiers of Germany.In pursuance of this policy Bismarck sought to cement Germanys position in Europe

through diplomacy rather than aggression, an approach which was in the mould ofMetternichs conservatism. Initially, Bismarck had tried to revive the Holy Alliance between the three conservative states of Austria, Russia and Germany with the purpose of preventing a conflict between these three states, especially sincethey were not natural allies and also to protect the German Empire from a potential attack from France. In 1873 he had proclaimed the Dreikaiserbund or the League of Three Nations. However, differences between Russia and Austria over the Balkans and the subsequent conference of Berlin (1877), which nullified all of Russias victories in the Balkans, compelled Russia to walk out of this alliance.In such a situation it was only the alliance with Austria-Hungary which was ableto work. In 1879 the Dual Alliance was formed between Germany and Austria-Hungary by a secret treaty. In the search for a third power, Germany had to settle for Italy, with which a secret Triple Alliance was formed in 1882. In 1887 a Reins

urance Treaty was signed with Russia, which guaranteed secret neutrality of Russia in the event of a conflict. After 1890 when Bismarck was dismissed, German foreign policy changed to one of Weltpolitik. The policy of assurance towards other European countries was ended and the spirit of the Dual Alliance changed frombeing an alliance for defence to being a springboard for Germanys own ambitions.It was also used by Italy to bolster her efforts in the Libyan war against Turkey and by Austria in her Balkan policy.With this change in policy a new system of counter alliances also began to emerge. In 1893 a Dual Alliance was made between France and Russia. Great Britain wasthe only large European power that was being kept out of all these large alliances that were being formed. An alarmed Great Britain began its quest for alliesin the Pacific with the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902, clearly directed againstRussia. In 1904 a Dual Entente was signed between Britain and France, based on a

colonial settlement whereby Britain and France got a free hand in Egypt and Morocco respectively. Both Russia and England also felt that they needed to ally themselves with each other in order to ensure security for their interests in Asiaand the Balkans respectively. Moreover, while Russia had come into conflict with Germany over its cultivation of Austrian interests in the Balkans, the Boer War in South Africa in which the Germans had assisted the Boers against Britain had led to a serious deterioration of Anglo-German relations. Thus, a path had been created for Russia and England to come together to form an alliance. In 1907 the Anglo-Russian Entente was signed and colonial claims in Persia, Tibet and Afghanistan were settled. It should be noted that these alliances were by and large


4/10

agreements and not definite military alliances. Therefore their importance should not be exaggerated.The formation of such alliances undoubtedly led to increased tensions in Europe.The secret nature of these treaties added to the suspicion. Fay argued that itwas these alliances that bred an important cause for the outbreak of the war. Ithad led to the division of Europe into two rival camps, thereby, creating an atmosphere of mutual fear and suspicion. He goes on to argue that as a result of these alliances nations were drawn into conflict in areas, where they otherwise had no interest. For e.g., Germany was not interested in taking over any territory in the Balkans but the fact that Austria was interested in this area drew Germany into the region as well. Finally, he stated that Imperialistic clashes helped to cement these alliances together, which were further crystallized on accountof these alliances.The viewpoints of Fay have been accepted by Bernadott Schmitt. He states that these alliances helped in cementing the international relations. These alliances had divided Europe into two rival armed camps and the War of 1914 was essentiallya war between these two camps. In the absence of these camps none of the European countries would have felt confident enough and probably the war would have not taken place.Alliances however could not automatically lead to war and conversely alliances could contribute to peace by acting as a deterrent against possible aggressors. It was the change in the nature of these alliances from defensive to aggressive that made a difference. The theory of two balancing power blocs actually impliespreservation of balance of power and thereby preservation of peace. AJP Taylor p

oints out that the pre-1914 alliances were so precarious and fragile that they cannot be seen as the major cause of war. This indicates that a fundamental problem which contributed to the outbreak of the war was the lack of a fully effective balance of power in Europe, not its existence. Alliances were important, but as James Joll has argued no European power really accepted that the alliance system consisted of two firm and balanced power blocs and no major European power subscribed to the idea that the alliance system was a complete deterrent against war. Each power made wrong calculations about the likely behaviour of its alliance opponents, thereby, creating that environment of mutual suspicion and fear.While the specific terms of the alliances were kept secret, the knowledge of thevery existence of these alliances determined direction of mobilization plans. It seems that the alliance system raised expectations about likely allies in a future war, and influenced the military plans of each power. However each nation s

eemed to base its decision for war on an assessment of national interests, whichwere linked to alliances, but were not, in all cases, determined by them. The alliance system determined extensive timetables which were chalked out in planning for war. It is to this extent that a link can be drawn between the alliance system and the outbreak of the First World War.The growth of militarism is the years preceding the outbreak of the war, has also been perceived as a factor leading up to the war. Militarism refers to the arms buildup and escalation of tension before the war. Europe has been viewed as anarmed campfrom 1870 to 1914. Michael Howard argues that each announcement of increased armamentsexpenditure by a European power before 1914 was viewed as a threat by its perceived rival, and thus created an atmosphere of mutual fear and suspicion which played a major part in creating the mood for war in 1914. Frank McDonough has said that it was militarism from above that brought about the War. In

the Reichstag, there was constant struggle between the Left & Center on the onehand and the Kaiser and the military men on the other over the issue of increasing military expenditure. The former was strongly opposed to it. The latter group believed that once war broke out this group would have no option but to sanction this expenditure. Thus, they believed that War was the only way through whichthe struggle in the Reichstag could be resolved. Thus, according to McDonough it was the military men who played a key role on the eve of the War to bring it about.AJP Taylor argued that the outbreak of the First World War was caused almost entirely by rival plans for mobilization by the European powers. All European power


5/10

s had developed detailed war plans in expectation of war. Military planners believed in a swift mobilization of forces and lightning offensives. However, the idea that a buildup of arms naturally leads to war remains dubious. The belief that high expenditure on arms leads to a desire for war remains unproved. Niall Ferguson has claimed that the role of the arms race in encouraging the First WorldWar has been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, the relationship between military plans and actual decisions for war is complicated.Many historians believe that the considerations of the leading powers regardingthe balance of power was a much greater influence than a simple build up of armson policy during the July crisis. According to LFC Turner the crisis cannot understood without knowledge of the balance of military power, military planning and strategy. The balance of power in the Balkans was turning sharply against Austria-Hungary and this was a vital factor which caused her to argue for a preventive warto weaken Serbia.When considering militarism as a cause for the war, we should also consider it in the context of a cultural phenomenon as well. Militaristic language in which war was glorified as good, leading to rebirth and peace seen as degenerate came to affect the language of international relations in this period. When the war broke out it was greeted with hysterical enthusiasm over all European capitals.The roots to the militaristic attitude of the late 19th and early 20th century can be seen in what has been seen by many as the crisis in the liberal, Enlightenment, rational values, which in turn was being translated into politics. This kind of a mindset found expression in both ends of the ideological spectrum; the Marxist ideology with its violent rhetoric of class war and on the right, by the

rise of a new brand of irrational politics shaped by people, who used irrationalmeans to move the masses. Perhaps it was Bismarcks statement that the politics ofGermany would no longer be decided by ideas and assembly speeches but by bloodand ironthat truly marked the end of liberal ideology and the introduction of abrand of irrational politics. The cultural crisis of this period was thereforea crisis in liberal values and explains much of world politics in this era.When we see those thinkers whose ideas percolated down to the masses and also contributed in a most powerful way to the creation of a militaristic environment in this period, the names of Charles Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche stand out. Charles Darwins (1809-1882) Origin of Species challenged the Christian conception of origins and placed the origins of species in a competitive process of naturalselection. Darwins ideas were later adapted as Social Darwinism, which applied Darwins ideas to society and argued that society also evolved through struggle and

therefore class struggle was perceived as natural. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) believed that life was a constant struggle, and existence fundamentally chaotic. He believed that there was no absolute morality. Struggle as a moral obligation was central to his thought. This was the kind of language that permeated down to the masses.These new ideas provided a rhetoric in which international relations came to bedebated, but it should be clarified that this language didnt create the war itself. The effect of these ideas can however be seen in the manner people were responding to the European situation. Militaristic ideas also explain the unnatural hysteria on the eve of the war.The role of national self-determination in the origins of the war has been another important area of debate. Martel has argued that the First World War grew outof a clash between Slav nationalismand the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire.

This type of interpretation which sees the Balkan crisis in the context of thelong running Eastern Questionviews the First World War as one which was fought for the future of Central and Eastern Europe. According to this view the primary responsibility for beginning the war is shared between Austria-Hungary, which wanted to restore its prestige, and Serbia which stood in a good position to benefit from European rivalry in the region. John Leslie, a British historian howeverhas cast doubt on the importance of the Austro-Serb quarrel. He points out thatAustria-Hungary can be held responsible for planning a local Austro-Serb conflict, linked to the question of Balkan nationalism. Germany however was not interested in this quarrel and deliberately used it as an opportunity to launch the Eur


6/10

opean war. Thus, it is important to analyse the situation in the Balkan during this period as it provided the most immediate background to WWI.According to David Thompson, the first WW was not fought for colonial interests.Instead, it was being fought for European issues of the Balkans. The Eastern Questioncame to dominate the European scene on the eve of the first WW. It was whenthis struggle over the region became intense the final clash took place. He argued that the Balkans had become the focal point for a triple conflict: (1) between dynastic imperialism and insurgent nationalism; (2) between Pan-Germanism andPan-Slavism; and (3) between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. This three-fold struggle explains why the assassination at Sarajevo could precipitatea world war.An important factor that had led to serious chaos in the Balkan region was the rapid disintegration of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. In fact, this so called Eastern Questionhad arisen as a result of the weakening of the Ottomans. The Ottoman Turks had been spreading their power after capturing Constantinople in 1453. However, they had been unsuccessful in gaining control over Central Europe and theirpower was confined to Southern Europe. But gradually, it became a weak empire and by the 19th century came to be known as the Sickman of Europe. Taking advantageof this growing weakness many of the Great Powers had started to meddle in itsinternal affairs with the hope of gaining prominence in the region. For instance, Russia wished to spread her influence in this region and began to lay claims to the Balkans for strategic reasons, on religious and racial grounds. As part ofthe racial argument, Russia encouraged Pan-Slavism and saw itself as the leaderof a Pan-Slav movement that aimed at creating a Great Slavic Empire that would

include within it all the slavs- a majority of the people in the Balkan region.Economically, this region was extremely important for the survival of the Russian economy as well. It provided them not only food grains and cheaper raw materials, which were essential for the nascent industrial Russian economy but also provided them access to Africa, which was a major center for the export of their goods. Austria-Hungary too was deeply concerned with the question of nationalism in this region primarily because it was a multi-ethnic region where Balkan nationalities often overlapped with ethnic identities. Thus, according to Thompson, the interest of Russia and Austria in the Balkans was motivated to a large extentby their internal conditions and desire to hold on to their own multi-ethnic territories.The weakness of the Ottoman Empire and the interference of the Great Powers werealso accompanied by a rise of nationalistic sentiments among the various ethnic

races and nationalities residing within the Empire in this region. In fact, bythe end of the 19th century many countries had overthrown the Turkish rule and declared their independence. The most ambitious of these nations were Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. Their desire to expand their territory to include those all people of their own nationality brought them into conflict with each other, Turkey or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Among the most dominant Balkan states was Serbia, which had taken the lead in defying the Ottoman rule. They had started revolting against the Turkish rule as early as 1804 and were granted autonomy by 1830. In 1875, a revolt had broken outin Bosnia, which sparked off a much greater spirit of resentment that spread toother parts of the Balkan states as well like Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. The Turkish Sultans had tried to put these rebellions down with a heavyhand but instead it had led to large-scale atrocities resulting in the massacre

of thousands of people.It was in a situation like this that Austria and Russia had decided to intervene, while, at the same time countries like France and Britain had decided to remain neutral. They both reached an agreement with each other known as the Reichstadtagreement, wherein it was decided that Romania and Serbia would become independent. Austria promised to remain neutral. It was decided that if Turkey wins thenthe sultan would maintain status quo, however, if Russia won (more probable) then Serbia and Romania would be declared independent and a great state of Bulgariathat included Romania would be created in the Aegean Sea. In this way it was hoped that these countries would be under Russian obligation and control. In 1878


7/10

following the Russo-Turkish war, Serbia was declared an independent state at theCongress of Berlin. For Serbia however this was not the realization of her nationalism and she sought to unite all Slavs into a Yugo-Slav union with Russian help. It was the Austrian insecurity at this that led directly to the World War, according to many historians.In 1877, another treaty was reached between Austria and Russia known as the Budapest Convention. Again it was decided that Austria would maintain her neutrality but gain control over Bosnia. Following a Russian victory against Italy and the consequent Treaty of San Stephanoin 1877 Bulgaria was created including Romania and Macedonia. This, however, was disliked by Britain and France as they feared the growing Russian influence in the region. This new principality with access tothe Aegean sea could very easily threaten Straits that separated the Black sea from the Mediterranean. This arrangement was not acceptable to the British Empire, which considered the entire Mediterranean to be a British sphere of influence,and saw any Russian attempt to gain access there as a grave threat to its power. They wanted the matter to be resolved by an international committee and thus,the Congress of Berlinwas organized for this purpose. However, this congress hadsown the seeds of all future conflicts. It had negated all the gains of Russia due to which it emerged unhappy from this congress. Moreover, the congress had refused to recognize the full autonomy of Bulgaria and returned the territories ithad gained on account of previous treaties back to the Ottoman Empire. Thus, this went against the spirit of nationalism that had reached new heights in Bulgaria. Finally, one of the gravest mistakes of this congress was to place Bosnia under the rule of Austria-Hungary, which had strong racial connections with Serbia

. It had become clear that the Congress of Berlin had satisfied the great powersat the cost of the Balkan nationality and it was clear according to Thompson that the Balkan volcano would erupt again in the future. This in turn had paved the way for future conflicts. According to many scholars if the Treaty of San Stephano would have been maintained the Balkan Wars and consequently, WWI could havebeen avoided.There were a series of conflicts in Balkans following this Congress. Bulgaria in1885 repudiated the terms of this agreement and united with Romania, which hadbeen taken away from her after the 1878 agreement. This reunification proved tobe a clear defiance of Russia as well which had presented Bulgaria to the worldas its protg. A serious revolt had also broken out in Crete, which was ruthlesslysuppressed and Cyprus was handed over the British. Following this incident there was some degree of peace and stability in the region, which came to an end whe

n the Russian dream for an Eastern Empire came to an end in 1905 when it was defeated by Japan. Moreover, as Russia had been able to free himself from the problems of internal rebellions she was able to further her interests in the Balkans.Bosnia was at the core of the Austrian-Serb rivalry as both of them desired to control Bosnia. As seen above Bosnia had been placed under Austrian rule in 1878.Austria began to fear the impact of the Young Turk movement in the predominantly Muslim Bosnia, and in 1908 annexed Bosnia. Russia and Serbia immediately protested. Serbia was up in rage as this area contained a million serbs and she turned from a semi-client state to a relentless enemy against Austria. Russia had appealed to the other Great Powers for help but England and France had preferred tomaintain their neutrality. But this incident had led to the strengthening of the Triple Entente as France began to strengthen Russia secretly in order to count

er the growing strength of Austria. However Germany now threatened Russia with the prospect of a European war if she decided to intervene, forcing Russia to step down. Moreover, Leman- a German Commander- was sent to reorganize the armed forces in Bosnia. This Lemian Episode caused a great deal of panic and tension andthe German intervention began to be looked upon with a great deal of apprehension making the entire situation extremely fluid and tense. Similarly, the Germandesign for the Berlin-Baghdad railways was looked upon with a great deal of apprehension and was resented by all the Great Powers. Thus, the possibility of thisclash between Russian nationalism and German nationalism seemed to have furthercrystallized the power blocs.


8/10

The reasons for German intervention in the region can be traced back to the change in their foreign policy following the dismissal of Bismarck. The policy of Weltpolitik had led German to embark upon a more aggressive and forward policy ascompared to what it had adopted in the past. Germany had thus used the Dual Alliance to urge the Austrians on to a forward policy in the Balkans with the aim ofincreasing its own power and at the same time safeguard the interests of its only reliable ally in Europe.Closing linked to this was the rise of nationalism among the Balkan states and their own ambitions to expand and capture some of the Ottoman territories. A Balkan Leaguewas formed in 1812 that consisted of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro. The aim of this league was to overthrow the oppressive Turkish rule particularly in Montenegro, which had tried to impose a common language, legal systemand rule over these nationalities. Thus, it was the constant refusal of the Young Turks to grant any degree of autonomy to Montenegro, which had national minorities of all the neighboring countries that had caused a great deal of upheavalin the region. Montenegro had declared war on Turkey in 1812, which was supported by the entire league and in which they had emerged victorious. However, they were unable to gain tremendously from this movement as the Great Powers had intervened, thereby, thwarting the efforts of the Balkan League. However, two monthslater Turkey declared war on the Balkan league and once again was defeated. As aresult of this Balkan War all countries with the exception of Albania and a fewmore places had declared their independence. The uneven distribution of war spoils following this war had caused a great deal of dissatisfaction for Bulgaria,which declared war on the other countries of the Balkan league. Bulgaria was def

eated and through the Treaty of Bucharest was forced to pay a price to all the parties involved in terms of territories.The Balkan Wars had made the international or atleast European situation even more belligerent. No belligerent believed that the decisions about territory wouldremain constant. Serbia believed that war against Austria was the only solutionto liberate the Serbs in Bosnia. Thus, in Serbia, terrorist groups began to emerge with the aim of carrying out terrorist activities to liberate Bosnia. This forms the background to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo. Austria was now assured of Germanys support (blank cheque) against Russia and Serbia. Bulgaria at the same time wished to avenge her humiliation at the hands of the other Balkan nations and looked at Turkey and Austria as the potential allies. Thus, Russia to maintain her interests in the region by aligning herself with Serbia and Romania against Bulgaria. Thus, any future outbreak of war in the

region would have led to a much larger war involving a much greater number of powers. In the crisis following the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand therefore, both Germany and Russia now knew they could not turn back. Russia beganto mobilize her troops and on this pretext, Germany declared war on Russia on 1st August and on France on 3rd August.The role of the press in causing the war has to also be highlighted. Fay arguesthat it plays an important role in any war. For instance, during the Franco Prussian war the EMS telegram was publicized to a great extent by the press. Fay says that jingoism prevailed among the press on the eve of the Sarajevo crisis in Russian, Austrian and Serbian newspapers. This war hysteriathus had a definite impact in aiding sentiment in favour of war.On 4th August, Britain declared war on Germany. While Britains real reason for entering the war was to prevent a disruption of continental balance of power, her

official pretext was German entry into neutral Belgium. USA too entered the waron the pretext of the German submarine blockade. It is interesting to see that as status quo powers both Britain and USA were able to enter the war on idealistic grounds, in which they were almost as aggressive as Germany.Before we conclude our discussion on the factors that led to WWI one must look at the academic debate that has taken place on the issue of responsibility. Joachim Remak in his book The Origins of the World Warraises the question of responsibility and the factors that goaded the countries into declaring war. The officialreport on the origins of the war, written by the victorious powers, and presented to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 concluded that the war was premedi


9/10


10/10

me time. It is for this reason that they believed that War would act as a unifying bond.It was during the interwar years, the idea of collective responsibility for theoutbreak of the war came to become the orthodox interpretation. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister suggested that all the nations of Europe slithered overthe edge of the boiling cauldron of war in 1914.Thus, to conclude, one can see that holding one single factor as being responsible for the outbreak of war is an oversimplification of the issue. It was interplay of all the factors mentioned above that created an environment that made warinevitable. While in the final crisis of July 1914 the German government acted in a way that made war more likely, the enthusiasm with which war was greeted inall the belligerent countries and the assumption by each of the governments concerned that their vital national interests were at stake, were the result of an accumulation of factors intellectual, social, economic and even psychological aswell as political and diplomatic which all contributed to the situation in 1914.As far as the responsibility for war is concerned it is Fay, who has given a balanced judgement. He has said that the entire blame cannot rest with Germany alone. Other countries should share the blame as well because when war ultimately broke out because of the Sarajevo crisis, it was essentially a conflict between Serbia and Austria- and not because of some German interests-that got blown out ofproportion. A quotation on a war memorial at Belgrade stated that Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was in right infearing isolation and Great Britain in fearing German power. Everyone was right

and everyone was wrongall were sinners, all were sinned against.

origins of the 1st ww

Documents