Aceh.b-cdn.net



Why did war break out in 1914? In your response refer to the available historiography acknowledging the varying views on the causes of WWI.The causes of the outbreak of World War I in 1914, has been a contentious issue in historiography. This is why historian, Spencer C. Olin has remarked that “[t]o survey the historiography of World War I is no easy task…[H]ardly a decade has passed that has not witnessed a significant shift in the dominant interpretation”. Despite the fact that historical opinions have constantly changed, it is generally accepted that there were four reasons why WWI broke out in 1914. These are Nationalism, Militarism, Imperialism and The Alliance System. Each was interconnected with the other and each played its own unique role in the outbreak conduct and continuance of the war. Yet amongst all these causes, a common underlying thread of nationalist fever has been acknowledged as the ultimate factor which drove Europe to war.Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism or loyalty to one’s country. Nationalists place the interests of their own country above those of other countries.?This rose to prevalence as a mind set in Europe in the late 19th century. During this era, many kingdoms became unified after the Napoleonic Wars, such as Germany under Bismarck and this led to the defeat of France in 1871, as well as Italy by the Congress of Vienna (1815) . Thus, the inhabitants were bonded under a common culture, beliefs and this ultimately was the justification of national pursuits of imperialism, militarism, alliances, revolution in Russia, and eventually war. For example, this has been exemplified through the judgement of Jeffrey Verhey, historian, who claims “The first month of the war resembled a month-long patriotic festival.’ In addition, men were encouraged to join the armed forces on the basis of nationalistic grounds. For example, in the UK in 1914, propaganda proliferated with images of the flag with evocative phrases such as “its our flag.. fight for it… work for it”. As well as, “Your King and your country need you. Enlist now!”. Hence, this points to the nationalistic drive that encouraged war. Moreover, the unification of many states also saw a grow in the economy due to free market capitalism. This along with the on going industrial revolution, allowed states, such as Germany and Britain to militarise and eventually explore their imperial interest, all maintained by the notion of nationalism. This consequently brings in the commonly argued issue of militarism.Although, Zara Steiner, Historian argues that “The belief in war as a test of national power and a proof of national superiority added a scientific cult of patriotism. Hence, Militarism proved to be a detrimental cause of war as it not only forwarded and enabled imperialism and the arms race, but it provided countries with the means and confidence to declare war. For example, British and German military was such that it fostered an arms race which served to develop a large rivalry, that eventually encouraged Britain to enter the war effort. For example, rationing propaganda from 1914 across GB depicted phrases of anti-German sentiment surrounding the arms race. For example, one source, published in a British newspaper read “Don’t waste bread! Save two slices every day and defeat the U-boat!”. As well as “Defeat the Kaiser and his U boat”, along with extreme distortion of the German enemy.This is evident as, in Great Britain 1870, 94 million pounds was spent on the military, yet in 1914, this figure almost tripled to 378 million. Further to this, Germany’s militarism was such that by 1904 they had already developed the “Schlieffen Plan”; a deceive plan to invade France. Hence this highlights how their readiness to use military force solved national issues.This ultimately fostered an environment of pro-military outlook, where nations believed this was the necessary decision to deal with political conflicts. Although still, the notion of militarism was evidently predicated on national prideMoreover, The nations were named and shamed for their militarism eg in Britain a common catch cry by the “Navy League’ during this era was “we want 8 (dreadnoughts) and we wont wait”; further driving the arms race.. Although, Steiner also further asserts how this was forwarded on nationalistic reason as ‘In Britain, boys were taught that success in war depended on patriotism and the preparation for war would strengthen ‘manly virtue’ and ‘patriotic ardour’”. Additionally, the respective governments would often probe its citizens to adopt a militaristic mind-set through nationalistic propaganda. For example, in Germany, propaganda romanticising men in uniform ran rife even prior to the outbreak of war. For example, some read “Knights of the air. My German Hero’s”Although, According to V I Lenin, The first word war was an “ imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides. It was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence [and] of finance capital.”“New” imperialism rose to prevalence in the late 19th century, where military advances enabled strong European powers to further their strengths and colonies in areas such as Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Balkan’s. Though, nationalism was a origin for this key origin for its advance. For example there was a steadfast imperial belief the fact that imperialism was for the good of “God, Glory and Gold”. Moreover, propaganda published in a French newspapers in 1911 featured the imperial power seemingly as a ‘goddess’ who if increasing their strength whilst providing civilisations to the natives. However, this imperialism led to rivalry and tensions between many European nations. For instance, many wars were fought under imperialist grounds such as the Crimean, Franco Prussian, and Russo-Japanese. Though, the respective nationalist plunder and glory brought home by these wars furthered aggressive diplomacy of nations to further contentions. This resulted in a contentious state in Europe which was all fuelled by nationalistic tensions. This was most notably seen in the colonial conquest for Balkans. For instance, in the contentions between Austro-Hungary’s advance in the Balkans with Russia’s yearn to keep them out; in the hopes of the acquisition of a warm sea port. This ultimately predicated Austro-Hungary’s declaration of war after the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand. Although, despite this evident influence, it was indeed, nationalism at the core that fuel this. As Austro-Hungary’s imperialism advanced into the Balkans, it saw Serbian nationalism increased exponentially. This resulted in many rival terrorist groups being formed such as the ‘Back Hand” . For example, propaganda and anti Austrian sentiment began to proliferate displaying words such as “Protect freedom and Protect Serbia”, hence this eventually fuelled the anti-Austrian sentiment that resulted in the Arch Duke’s assassination. Although, the reasons as to why war broke out in 1914 were further amplified through the Alliance system. This was pointed out by the historian Bradshaw when he said in 1928 that the “[A]lliance system was the greatest cause of [the First World] war”.Alliance systems had been common in Europe for centuries, yet with the higher than ever imperial fever and military environment, the alliances had greater potential to cause a bloody war. Modern alliances were founded in Europe after Napoleonic wars such as in the Congress of Vienna 1815. Many alliances were formed out of imperialist and nationalist contentions to advance the interests of a country, especially in the Balkans e.g. the Dual in 1879 between Germany and Austro-Hungary ,which eventually became the Triple Alliance, was due to Austro-Hungary’s interest in the Balkans and Germany’s fear of Russia. Conversely this same issue also fuelled the Triple Entente. By 1914 Europe would find its self-divided into two rival alliances where any conflict could result in war throughout Europe.The Alliances ultimately provided the momentum for the war to continue, without which each of the combatants would not have proceeded, further at various stages of the conflict, if it had only considered its vital interests. In other words, the Alliances led to a rapid cascading series of declaration of war and mobilisation of armies as each nation was locked in. It prevented them from withdrawing. It led to a stalemate, which perpetuated the carnage. This is why it only took one month from the assassination of the Arch Duke in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 before the armies from five nations had mobilised.Ultimately, WWI officially was declared on August 4th 1914 when Britain declared war on Germany after invading neutral Belgium during the Schlieffen plan. This was one of the last declarations after a string of contentions known as the “July Crisis”, sparked after the assignation of the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand on June 28 1914, during and ill planned visit to Bosnia on their national day. And it is evident, that all the respective decisions of nations to declare war was influenced by a complex mix of Nationalism, Militarism, Imperialism and The Alliance System. Yet as argued by the historian Ken Foster , ”the nationalistic fever of the dozen men who controlled the instruments of diplomacy during the First World War led them to relegate the peace question to a less important position than certain other real or imaginary?issues’. Hence, it is safe to say, that the driving force behind all these causes stems from a nationalist drive that eventually drove nations to declare war in reverence of their motherland. 2. Evaluate the causes of WWI3. TO what extent was the actions of Germany responsible for the outbreak of WWI4. TO what extent was the alliances responsible for the outbreak of WWI ALLAINCESThe Alliances ultimately provided the momentum for the war to continue, without which each of the combatants would not have proceeded, further at various stages of the conflict, if it had only considered its vital interests. In other words, the Alliances lead to a rapid cascading declaration of war and mobilisation of armies as each nation was locked in. It prevented them from withdrawing. It led to a stalemate, which perpetuated the carnage. This is why it only took one month from the assassination of the Arch Duke in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 1914 before the armies from five nations had mobilised.It also explains why erstwhile enemies such as England and France fought on the same side against common enemies of Germany and Austro-Hungary. Hence historian Jeffrey Verhey was able to say that “the first month of the war resembled a month-long patriotic festival”. This should not be taken as merely a statement of Nationalism, but rather of an affirmation of what side each country was going into battle, in accordance with its Alliance obligationsTragically, if these strong alliances did not exist, one country would have been able to sue for peace at various stages of the conflict. The Alliances prevented this, even though each of the individual countries wanted out. This is why Ken Foster said “the nationalistic fever of the dozen men who controlled the instruments of diplomacy during the First World war lead them to relegate the peace question to a less important position than certain other real or imaginary issues”. In other words the Alliances forced each of these diplomats to continue the conflict despite the loss of life and suffering and a desire to end the war. In the end, the Alliances prevented an ending of the war other than by an armistice on 11 November 1918. In order to fully explain the causes of the war one needs to consider separately each of the four causes set out above. This will enable one to understand how in 1914 Europe was a powder keg waiting to be ignited, as was indeed the case when the Austrian Arch Duke was assassinated. According to V I Lenin, The first word war was an “ imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides. It was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence [and] of finance capital.” This imperialism led to rivalry and tensions between Britain and Germany. It also led to an arms race. It was based on a belief in superiority of one nation over the other. This lead to the formation of Alliances based on empires: Germany and Austro-Hungary (The dual Alliance) and with Italy (The Triple Alliance); France and Russia (The Franco-Russian Alliance) and later with Britain ( the Triple Entente)Thesis- development of historiographyWithin show varying view ALL PROMTED ON NATIONALISM Nationalism- this occurred with unification, growth in economy and empire Militarism- fathered arms race, and scared nations Imperialism- fathered imperial contentions Alliance system- - however were all based on nationalist threads, This was pointed out by the historian Bradshaw when he said in 1928 that the “[A]lliance system was the greatest cause of [the First World] war”. Ultimately the nationalistic drive is what kept the war effort going – historians “The first month of the war resembled a month-long patriotic festival.’ Jeffrey Verhey, historian ‘There is such thing as a man being too proud to fight.”?Woodrow Wilson, US president, May 1915The German decision to risk a European war in 1914 was not based on hubris: there was no bid for world power.’ Niall Fergusonthe nationalistic fever of the dozen men who controlled the instruments of diplomacy during the First World War led them to relegate the peace question to a less important position than certain other real or imaginary?issues’ Ken Foster Zara Steiner, Historian “The belief in war as a test of national power and a proof of national superiority added a scientific cult of patriotism… In Britain, boys were taught that success in war depended on patriotism and the preparation for war would strengthen ‘manly virtue’ and ‘patriotic ardour’”MILITARISM - The war [is] imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides. It is a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence [and] of finance capital.”Vladimir Lenin, Russian socialistNiall Ferguson, argues imperialism had nothing to do with the outbreak eg he says the imperial contentions were between the entente who fought on the same side “few contemporaries in 1895 would have predicted that they would have ended o fighting a war in the same side in 20 years, After, all the collective diplomatic memory go the previous century was of recurrent friction between Britain, France and Russia”ALLIANCE - Sidney Bradshaw - 1928 “alliance system was greatest cause of war”Why did war break out in 1914? In your response refer to the available historiography acknowledging the varying views on the causes of WWIThe period before war broke out in 1914 was one of the most contentious periods in European history. Hence it is clearly why, Historian, Spencer c. Olin has remarked that ‘“To survey the historiography of World War I is no easy task… There were plenty of grounds for disagreement from the beginning, and Hardly a decade has passed that has not witnessed a significant shift in the dominant interpretation”. Throughout history, the historical opinion has often been altered from the causes of imperialism, militarism, and the actions of single counties. Yet amongst all these causes, a common underlying thread of nationalist fever has been acknowledged as the ultimate factor which drove Europe to war. . Ultimately, this melting pot of contention eventually erupted with the July Crisis in 1914, after the assignation of the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, which erupted nationalists to eventually go to war. Serbian nationalist erupted, resulting in support from Russia etc war Nationalism on both sides ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download