Figure 1.--Prussia against Bismarck's advise, after the Franco-Prussian War annexed Alsace-Loraine. The recovery of the two provinces became a cause-celebre in France. The children here in this French postcard are dressed in Alsatian folk costumes. (Notice the wooden shoies.) The card reads, "Chanson d'Alsace. Drapeau béni! nous chantons à tia Glorie. De toi nous attendons la Victoire." That means something like, "Song of Alsace. Blessed flag! We sing with tia Glorie. For you us let us achieve the Victory." France was deeply commited to reclaiming the lost provinces. Click on the image to see the back. Notice it is being sent as an affectionate note to a little girl. This shows just how deep-seated the desire to regain the provinces were. French leaders had learned there lesson well from 1870. There would be no goung to war with Germany alone. Thus the alliance with Russia was a major event.

The Allies in the Versailles Treaty followung the War forced Germany to accept responsibility for the War. Germany did play an important, if not central role, in the outbreak of the War. Unlike World War II, however, the Germans were not solely responsible for the outbreak of World War I. The causes of World War I have been the subject of great historical debate. At the time many people in Europe had convinced themselves that Europe had progressed to the point that war was no longer possible. The European econommy was so intertwined that it did not seem possible that major European countries could go to war. It was uncreasingly seen as an uncivilized vestage of the past. After the War the system of "entangling" alliances was seen as the major cause. Left wing analysts tended to see the war as a result of capitalism and imperialism. A recurrent theme was that arms manufacturers , referred to as the "merchants of death" helped bring the war about and profited from it. There were widely publicised Congressional investigations in America. Surely the European alliance system played a role in the conflict, but the Markist explanation lacks any real insiht into the conflict. The War can best be understood in the sence that that the number of countries and national groups that felt agrevied reached a critical mass. In this regard only Britiain in the final analysts had no real basic interests involved--until German armies crossed the Belgian frontier. The groups most agreived were the nationalities governed by the empires that controlled much of Europe (Austrian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires). And it was here that the spark that set off the War came. Serbs were agreved by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia. Austrians were agreved by Serb support for terroism and Russian backing of the Serbs. And the Slavs were just one of many nationalities within the Empire. The Russians felt agreved by Austrian efforts to supress the Serbs (fellow Slavs). The Germans decided to support the Austrians. This has been blamed on the alliance with Austria. In fact, Germany's decession to go to war reflected a widely held belief in Germany that their country should play a leading role in Europe and was not being given due deference by other countries. The Frence since the Franco-Prussian War desired to regain their lost provinces--Alsace-Lorraine. They were not, however, about to confront Germany on their own. This was why France's ability to negotiate an alliance with Russia was such a key step. Britain was more of a question. The Kaiser's belicocity and decesion to buld a highseas fleet had changed British attitudes toiward Germans. Even so, Britain had no desire to enter a European War. The Germans created the one cause for British participation--an attempt to dominate the Continent and especially the Lowlands. Given the enormity of the disaster that made up World War I, the grevances felt by the beligerant powers may seem small even trivial. But few wars begin on the basis of rational thinking.

German War Guilt

The Allies in the Versailles Treaty followung the War forced Germany to accept responsibility for the War. Germany did play an important, if not central role, in the outbreak of the War. It was the Germans that by essentially writing Austria-Hungary a blank check that turned a Balkan incident into a European crisis. And it was of course the Germans that took the first military action oytside of the Blkans, invading France through neutral Belgium. Unlike World War II, however, the Germans were not solely responsible for the outbreak of World War I.

Contributing Factors

The causes of World War I have been the subject of great historical debate. At the time many people in Europe had convinced themselves that Europe had progressed to the point that war was no longer possible. The European econommy was so intertwined that it did not seem possible that major European countries could go to war. It was uncreasingly seen as an uncivilized vestage of the past. Thus the War came as a great shock. After the War, scholars addressed the causes of the War in considerable detail. Interestingly the historical assessment was most pronounced in the victorious Allied countries. In Germany, the debate was less about what caused the War, nd more about why Germany lost the War.

Entagling alliances

After the War the system of "entangling" alliances was seen as the major cause.

Arms race

Capitalism and imperialism

Left wing analysts tended to see the war as a result of capitalism and imperialism. Surely the European alliance system played a role in the conflict, but the Markist explanation lacks any real insight into the conflict.

Arms manufacturers

A recurrent theme was that arms manufacturers , referred to as the "merchants of death" helped bring the war about and profited from it. There were widely publicised Congressional investigations in America. Despite extensive hearings, no real proof was ever found that industry played any important role in launching the War.

Aggreived nations

The War can best be understood in the sence that that the number of countries and national groups that felt agrevied reached a critical mass. In this regard only Britiain in the final analysts had no real basic interests involved--until German armies crossed the Belgian frontier. The groups most agreived were the nationalities governed by the empires that controlled much of Europe (Austrian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires). And it was here that the spark that set off the War came. Serbs were agreved by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia. Austrians were aggreved by Serb support for terroism and Russian backing of the Serbs. And the Slavs were just one of many nationalities within the Empire. The Russians felt aggreved by Austrian efforts to supress the Serbs (fellow Slavs). The Germans decided to support the Austrians. This has been blamed on the alliance with Austria. In fact, Germany's decession to go to war reflected a widely held belief in Germany that their country should play a leading role in Europe and was not being given due deference by other countries. The Frence since the Franco-Prussian War desired to regain their lost provinces--Alsace-Lorraine. They were not, however, about to confront Germany on their own. This was why France's ability to negotiate an alliance with Russia was such a key step. Britain was more of a question. The Kaiser's belicocity and decesion to buld a highseas fleet had changed British attitudes toiward Germans. Even so, Britain had no desire to enter a European War. The Germans created the one cause for British participation--an attempt to dominate the Continent and especially the Lowlands. Given the enormity of the disaster that made up World War I, the grevances felt by the beligerant powers may seem small even trivial. But few wars begin on the basis of rational thinking.

Nationalism

Nationalism was certainly an important factor leading to the War. International issues can be negotiated, even serious matters. In the years before Workd War, there were a series of internatuinal incudents, any one could have led to War. Each was resolved through negotiation. Nationalistic thought, however, complicated these negotiations. None of the major European powers wanted to be seen as weak are backing down to the other powers. And public opinion in the various countries was highly nationalistic. This led to a highly charged international environment. There was some pacifist sentiment, but it was no where near as strong as nationalist sentiment. Here Germany as a new nation was particularly nationlistic and the country's bombastic kaiser was seen as reckless in several intetnational crisis. And the fact that Germany had Europe's strongest army, meant that Germany's strident nationalism was not tampered by military realities. France was also extrenely natiinalistic. Here a major factor was the loss of Alsace-Loraine in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71). France continued to see Alsace-Loraine as lost provinces which had to be regained and the only way of achieb=ving this was war. French war ardour, however, was tampered by military relaity. The Franco-Prussian War had taught them never to fight the Germans without allies. And French diplomacy had gined them llies--Russia and Britain.

German militarism

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, German militarism was seen as a major cause of the war. The victorious Allies blamed theGermans for the War. As the passions of the moment slowly ebbed and historians and journalists began to assess what happened, the idea og German war guilt and German militarism began to ebb and other explanations began to emerge that were not just focused on Germany, causes like entagling alliances, the arms race, capitalism, imperialism, arms manufacturers and other issues. With the rise of the NAZIs and World war II, the idea of German militarism reemerged as a cause of World War I. There is no question that the German Army had considerable prestige and influence in the German Empire. Historians point out that in most countries the Army supports the state, but the history of Prussia was more like a state supporting an army. Brandenberg-Prussia was a relatively small, poor country. It could survive in a rough neigborhood (north central Europe) only by training and equipping a substantial army. This was expensive and state revenue went primarily to support the army. Prussia expanded because of its standing army. It fared well in a series of wars, most of which were short. Countries with standing armies tend to do best in short wars. The Prussian military traditiin ton incourage aggresiveness and attack because the Prussian advantage wained if wars were not ended quickly and Prissia with its limited resources was at a disadvantage in long wars of attrition. It was Brussia with its military tradition an the Hohenzollern dynasty that finally united Germany. Thus the institutions and values of Prussia became central in the new German Empire. Imperial Germany was not, however, a poor country witn limited resources. Imperial Germany with its large army and substantial industry was the most powerful country in Europe and had the capability of dominating Europe. It is not fair to say that the German military was the cause of the World War I, but it certainly is a cause. The German military advised Kaiser Wilhelm that they could defeat France in a short campaign before the Russians could mobilize. And Kaiser Wilhelm was predeposed to accept their advise. As a boy, he had watched his father, Crown Prince Fredrich retirn from a successful campaign againsr France. He undoubtedly wanted the same kind of milatary laurels.

Created: 9:52 PM 8/14/2007
Last updated: 12:46 AM 11/28/2008