1
Christian Figueroa Rivera
MILH 498 – Senior Seminar
World War I: Who’s Responsible?
Professor Melinda M Zupon
April 24, 2013
2
World War I was one of the important events that took place in the twentieth century. It
began in Central Europe in late July 1914, and there were a number of interrelated causes that led
to the conflict; aspects such as imperialism, nationalism and militarism were also very important.
Some of the powerful European countries such as France, Russia, Germany and the United
Kingdom had tried to deal with various conflicting interests for a long time, but the direct origins
of the War can be directly attributed to decisions taken by various statesmen and generals during
the ‘Crisis of 1914’, following the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and his
wife by the Serbian, Gavrilo Princip.1 It was the first war when different countries locked horns
with one another over different issues, but in simple words most of the super powers were
motivated to gain supreme control over the European colonies that were spread across the World.
However, it is clear from research and historical evidence that even though all the major powers
of Europe were to some degree responsible for World War I, it is obvious that it is Germany that
should be fundamentally held responsible for the mayhem.
World War I was first ‘modern’ war to take place at the beginning of the 20th century.
From the point of view of nature as well as the course of the War, the characteristics of this war
were drastically different from any other previous war. The biggest influences of World War I
were the effects it had on international politics and the economic conditions of the countries that
participated in the war, both directly and indirectly.2 The struggle was chiefly between the
1 Samuel R. Williamson and Ernest R. May. "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July 1914," (Journal of Modern History vol. 79, no. 2, June 2007), 345.
2 Frank Turner, Origins of the First World War, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970), 42.
3
Central European powers and their controlled lands all over the world.3 In 1913, Europe was a
tense as well as a warmongering place, where many thinkers foresaw a war in Europe coming
which ultimately became a fact.
In simple terms, the biggest motivation behind World War I was the struggle for the
control of Europe, but it was more of a global conflict that had spread across three different
continents and five oceans. Previously, no single war had such a vast battlefield and that is why,
it was apt to characterize it as a World War. After its origins in the Balkans, the main theaters of
World War I were the battlefields of Western and Eastern Europe. The important power of the
war was Germany, who had made huge advancements in military endeavors at that time, and yet
failed to secure the final victory. Initially, Germany planned to defeat France through Belgium
but ultimately they failed to execute this plan completely. Throughout the course of World War
I, the Western Front saw the development of futile trench warfare and the associated battle
strategies.4
The German offensive began in 1914 in parts of Northern France, and it strangely
coincided with the Russian victory at Galicia. A very important aspect of World War I was that
for the first time technology and modern communication systems played an integral part. In
addition, the growth in the power of the state was very important, and that is why every party
directly associated with World War I was able to make allies with one or more countries with
similar intentions. These associations had previously been historically important but from the
3 Aaron Gillette, "Why Did They Fight the Great War? A Multi-Level Class Analysis of the Causes of the First World War," (History Teacher vol. 40 no. 1, November 2006), 49.
4 Frank Turner, Origins of the First World War, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970), 63.
4
point of view of battle strategies, these associations played a key role in the ‘elusiveness of
victory’ for any side fighting the war. Every countries army had been expanded and each army
could not be defeated in a single military campaign or even in a single battle. The death toll
increased dramatically but still countries were able to recover from their losses easily (by
introducing the compulsory enlistment of men i.e. conscription) and prepare again for another
‘bloody’ campaign. While armies became exhausted on the home fronts and on the battlefield,
each skirmish was inconclusive even though every side tried to mobilize their full resources in
each and every campaign.5
World War I was the first armed struggle in history where the relationship between
industrial development and scientific advancements became closely associated with victory. But
the developments had to be regular, because of the chance that the secrets could fall in enemy
hands. For example, Russia, one of the important European super powers at that time, had an
advantage over opponents such as Turkey and Austria-Hungary, another very important joint
force of that period, but suffered defeats at the hands of Germany, who continued their
technological advances during the war. But finally by 1918, the joint forces of the United
Kingdom, the United States and France defeated Germany.
For the first time in history, the Allied victory in the World War represented the victory
of a collective large community as both the British and French Empires were spread widely
across the world. These two super powers had effortlessly combined their empires in the World
War to defeat a common enemy. After the Crusades (the Holy Wars), this was the most wide
5 Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 32.
5
reaching war on European soil but the heat of the battle reached other continents such as Asia
and Africa. About thirty years later, World War II began, which was bigger in both scale and
destruction, but still World War I is thought of as the first great war of the modern era, ‘the war
to end all wars’.
It is noteworthy that the success of the Allied Forces was limited in both strategic and
technical ways. The Russian army was devastated as the country was going through the great
Russian Revolution of 1917 and there were signs of an impending civil war in Russia. As
Willmott stated: "Russia was defeated and driven from the ranks of Germany's enemies and thus
had no direct part in that country's defeat in autumn 1918".6 The US Army had by now
dispatched forces to help the Allies. In 1918, the Germans began their Spring Offensive but the
Americans arrived with a significant army that turned the tide of war in favor of the Allied
Forces. Though Germany was initially successful in defeating the British in a number of
campaigns, finally, exhausted, their resources depleted, they were forced to surrender.7
The great powers of Europe, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary were
at loggerheads for a long period of time in diplomatic clashes over European and colonial issues.
The beginning of the clashes can be traced back to the 1870s when these powers were trying to
gain more substantial colonial footings across the world as well as trying to garner business in
rich European markets. There was always some tension in the Balkan territories, where Austria-
6 Hedley P. Willmott, "World War I: Russia (Opponent Overview)," World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, (ABC-CLIO, 2013).
7 Aaron Gillette, "Why Did They Fight the Great War? A Multi-Level Class Analysis of the Causes of the First World War," (History Teacher vol. 40 no. 1, November 2006), 52.
6
Hungary forces fought with the joint armies of Serbia and Russia to exert control over the
region.8 In this war, all the other super powers of Europe got involved directly and their alliances
and treaties were tested during these times. The chain of events was accelerated by the
assassination, but the origins of the war go much deeper than that event.9
One of the widely discussed reasons for the outbreak of World War I was the sudden rise
of nationalism in Europe. There were a number of unresolved territorial disputes between the
great powers, not only in Europe but throughout the World, and the intricate alliance systems
that had dominated European politics for so long. Apart from these issues, imperial as well as
political rivalries for power, wealth and the control as well as the military played roles in the
conclusion of the war. Along with these issues, misunderstandings in different diplomatic
quarters, as well as delays in different process making decisions were involved.10
In Germany, the Socialist Party had made huge progress in the 1912 elections and it gave
the ruling Prussian Class ‘shivers down their spines’, and that is why this ruling class was hoping
for an external war which would have the power to distract the attention of the population. The
rulers thought they would directly benefit from patriotic support, while France believed that any
war was a huge gamble for them both politically and financially. A major part of the French
population was accordingly very angry over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. However, slowly by the
8 Arno Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War, (Boston: Croom Helm, 1981), 112.
9 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 154.
10 Leonard V. Smith, "The 'Culture De Guerre' and French Historiography of the Great War of 1914-1918," (History Compass vol. 5 no. 6, 2007), 1978.
7
active participation of Germany, France became alienated from Germany in the tense political
atmosphere then rife in Europe.11
Also the French leaders were aware of the military advantage Germany had over them
who clearly had a better army. Both the crisis in Tangiers as well as the Agadir Crisis of 1911
made France believe that Germany would always try to restrict the expansion of French
colonialism; France was trying to avoid a ‘war like situation’, which would not have been in its
best interests. In France, there were violent clashes between the Right Wing and Left Wing
parties, while social reforms were directed towards the creation of social instability. Another
important European power, the Austrian Empire, had changed its political workings thoroughly
from 1867 onwards and assumed dual monarchy with Hungary. Earlier, the country was ran by
German speaking autocrats and the deal made the German autocrats, as well as the leaders in
Germany, unhappy to say the least.12
Problems began to emerge and for a period of fifty years there was no permanent
solution. Austria at that time believed in social Darwinism and wanted to begin an armed
struggle between different European nations to settle the struggle for power in Europe once and
for all. To begin with they were ready to initiate an armed clash against the Serbians. Many
historians have emphasized the role of Austria-Hungary in triggering World War I, but in reality
they had hoped that there would be a limited war, and that Germany would support them and
11 David Fromkin, Europe's Last Summer: Who Started The Great War in 1914?, (Auckland: Knopf 2004), 76.
12 Samuel R. Williamson, Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, (Auckland: St. Martin's Press, 1999), 43.
8
stop Russia and France from joining in; the Balkan prestige would be broken. It was a direct
cause of World War I.13
Another angle stresses imperialism as an important reason for the start of World War I.
Some European countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, had accumulated great
wealth throughout the 19th century by their imperialistic endeavors and it gave them a great
financial advantage over their competitors. The main source of wealth was the natural resources
these powers had obtained from their colonies and they used these resources to their benefit.
Africa is very rich in different natural resources and at that time gold and diamond mines were
being discovered in Africa. The continent also contained abundant natural resources such as
ivory (in those days it was political correct to collect ivory), rubber and other natural products.
Other European colonial countries like Germany, Italy and Russia always wanted to take
advantage of the UK and French colonies. It was clear that the British Government was trying to
focus their advantages by creating tensions in different parts of the world to keep the other
countries forces ‘busy‘.14
Other European countries did not have limited natural resources and they were always
seeking new territories rich in natural resources to exploit; this was the beginning of the Anglo-
German conflict over the control of Africa. Germany was way behind Britain and France in
building up colonies in Africa and the German-English African Treaty only created more tension
13 Dennis Showalter, "The Great War and Its Historiography," (Historian Vol. 68, no. 4, Winter 2006), 719.
14 Hans-Ulrich Wehler, The German Empire, 1871-1918, (Berlin: Berg Publishers, 1985), 41.
9
between these countries.15 This can be viewed as one of the most important conflicts over
commercial interests at that time. Basically, Africa was divided into two different parts by the
colonial rulers the most prominent part being known as the ‘business partition’ located in the
southern part of Africa. Naturally, the discovery of gold and diamonds in this area made it one of
the most sought after places by colonial rulers. The British-South Africa Company, De Beers, a
prominent mining company of the UK, and others were the controllers of these partitions. The
goldfields of Africa were a very popular hunting ground for British capitalists when Germany
was trying to gain control over the economy of South Africa. They even established a railroad in
the country to facilitate business.16
The control of colonial trade routes by established as well as emerging economic powers
was a very important part of the conflict process. For example, one can take the example of the
Berlin-Baghdad Railroad. This route gave the opportunity for Germany to control the Iraqi oil
fields and accordingly they developed a port in the southern Persian Gulf. Thus, the history of
railroads in general had great importance in the growing conflicts all over the world that would
ultimately have a major impact on World War I.17
Germany was interested in wrestling some of the colonies from the British while Turkey,
a small power, was focused on confronting the Russian colonial machinery on a regional scale.18
15 Mildred Wertheimer, “Program of the Pan-German League, 1890-1898,”, (Fordham University: Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 1998).
16 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 762. 17 Annika Mombauer, "The First World War: Inevitable, Avoidable, Improbable Or Desirable? Recent Interpretations On War Guilt and the War's Origins," (German History vol. 25, no. 1, January 2007), 88.
18 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 98.
10
Germany was determined to control important African cities such as Cairo (Egypt), and Middle
Eastern cities such as Baghdad (Iraq) and Tehran (Iran) to block British trade in these highly
lucrative markets. In 1914, no colonial conflicts were in sight as Africa was completely claimed
by different colonial powers, except for a small part of Ethiopia.19 However, the competitive
mentality had been ‘stoked’ to fuel the Great War itself.
The participation of the United States in World War I was very important. The United
States joined the war effort to support the Allied forces and this participation greatly enhanced
the firepower of the British and French armies. The United States military was a huge support for
them and the morale of the two countries forces rose accordingly. The United States army
ensured that the Anglo-French troops became stronger at a time when the German forces were
growing weaker because of the long duration of the war. Historians often say that if World War I
had continued until 1919, the United States forces would become the important component of the
Allied Forces fighting on the Western Front.20
After the United States army joined the Allied forces, the offensives changed in form,
enriched by the superior artillery and tanks belonging to the United States army. The campaigns
lasted for short durations but were staged with finesse to make sure that the enemy was off
balance and ultimately it was the biggest reason for the comprehensive defeat of Germany.
Notably, the allies of Germany were also suffering and in September 1918, the Allied Forces
attacked the Germans at Salonika and later conquered Bulgaria and Turkey after only one month.
19 Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 91. 20 Hedley P. Willmott, "World War I: Russia (Overview)," World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, (ABC-CLIO, 2013).
11
The Italian Army also attacked the Austria-Hungary axis, and ultimately these combined actions
led to the conclusion of World War I.21
In the period before the war, a number of complex treaties bound different countries to
one another, and the majority of the contemporary political leaders completely failed to
understand the real potential of them. Some were localized treaties and some, like the “Triple
Entente between Russia, France and the United Kingdom” was a non-military treaty.22 One of
several examples of the misinterpretation of the treaties was the crisis between Serbia, Austria
and Hungary. It could have been handled as a localized issue but it escalated into international
proportions and later became the direct cause of the World War I.23
The Balkan wars (1912-13) were enough to increase military tension throughout the
European powers and also create huge international tension. “The Balkan crisis demonstrated
that even apparently firm, formal alliances were not guaranteed support and co-operation under
all circumstances”.24 In the wake of the wars, Serbia became militarily strong while countries
like Turkey and Bulgaria became weaker. Here the balance of power was directly disrupted and
changed in favor of Russia.25 Initially, the Russian Government had agreed to take every
21 Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 31.
22 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 104. 23 Frank Turner, Origins of the First World War, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970), 116.
24 James Joll, The origins of the First World War, (New York: Longman, 1992), 64.
25 Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 76.
12
necessary step so that any issues associated with territorial change could be avoided, but in 1912
they ignored this stance and supported the Serbian demand for an Albanian port.26
At that time, an international conference was held in London where a unanimous decision
was taken to create an independent Albania, but Serbia and Montenegro did not support this
decision. They even backed away from joint military action and the Austrian government
decided to issue an ultimatum that gave Montenegro one last chance to comply with the edict of
the international council. Austria was also beginning to prepare their military for the impending
war. Serbia, after failing to gain control over Albania, wanted to obtain other benefits from the
first Balkan war that were not supported by mighty Russia. Serbia joined forces with Greece and
attacked Bulgaria to begin the second Balkan war. The Bulgarian army quickly crumbled and at
that time Turkey and Romania joined the war in favor of Bulgaria. Basically both the Balkan
wars had heavily strained the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. The German
Imperial War Council made it clear that they would not support Austria and Hungary in their
offensive against Serbia or any of her allies.27
Britain at the beginning of the 20th century was afraid of several security issues and this
insecurity was because they feared that Germany was becoming economically stronger than
them. This was an important reason for Britain to join the war. In Africa, the economic trade
imperialism was initially dominated by Britain, but they were always suspicious of German
antics ‘over there’. Historically, both countries have confronted each other several times in the
26 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 175. 27 Aaron Gillette, "Why Did They Fight the Great War? A Multi-Level Class Analysis of the Causes of the First World War," (History Teacher vol. 40 no. 1, November 2006), 50–51.
13
war fields of Eastern Europe, as well as in political meetings. Both had allies who had their own
domestic pressure groups to create pressure on each other over trade related issues. Britain took a
mature step as it had successfully judged the invasion of Belgium as a necessary military strategy
by the Germans; it made them to prepare their army for war against the Germans.28
Actually, more than the situation in Belgium, Britain was much more concerned about
the conditions in France. After the joint forces of Prussia and Germany had defeated France,
Britain understood that Germany would try and control the English Channel with their powerful
navy. British policy makers readily understood that this would surely be a huge security risk for
Britain and therefore they became directly involved in the war.29
Russia played a very important role in the course of events that led to World War I in the
first place. For about four score years before World War I, Russia was a troubled land and had
suffered mightily from Germany oppression. Actually, at the point of time when Germany was
finally defeated, Russia had withdrawn from World War I. Another very important factor was the
Russian Revolution of 1917, and the ideological changes that were associated with it.30
Basically, Russia was a crucial piece of the puzzle in the context of the Allied cause
between 1914 and 1917, and specifically in the year 1916. Basically at this time point, Russia
had successfully helped its allies with offensives that were designed to deter all enemy resources
from close war zones. Also there was a point of time, when Russia had successfully inflicted a
series of defeats on Turkey and Austria-Hungary, and from these defeats the later could not
28 Zara Steiner, Britain and the Origins of the First World War, (LA: Macmillan Press, 1977), 17. 29 Ibid.
30 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 124.
14
recover.31 The Russian forces also tasted success in their mission in the Black Sea in sharp
contrast to their failure in Gallipoli. But still nothing could compensate them for their suffering at
the hands of the Germans.32
The historical idea persists that all the major nations were involved in World War I had a
large percentage of their populations who did not support the idea of going to war. However,
government propaganda bizarrely tried to make the populations believe that war was nothing but
a good thing. It had to be carried out for the country’s honor, and ultimately the war involved
millions of soldiers who went to the battlefields and paid the ultimate price for the noble cause.33
In the second half of the 19th century after the Industrial Revolution, Europe was divided
into two different kinds of nations. Though most European countries had imperialist dreams, not
many of them had as many colonies as the UK and France. Basically, a type of globalization was
being enacted then.34 However, at the same time, these European powers were getting ready for
more prosperity and were always prepared for war to achieve this aim as the worldwide struggle
for resources intensified. At that time, the arms race was massive and hideously expensive. For
example, both Britain and Germany always competed against one another to develop better and
bigger ships.35 Another very important thing to remember about this time is that a large part of
31 Hedley P. Willmott, "World War I: Russia (Opponent Overview)," World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, (ABC-CLIO, 2013).
32 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 141. 33 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 761.
34 Dennis Showalter, "The Great War and Its Historiography," (Historian Vol. 68, no. 4, Winter 2006), 718.
35 Zara Steiner, Britain and the Origins of the First World War, (LA: Macmillan Press, 1977), 55.
15
the population had direct military experience. Education had a much wider reach and the
common people were aware of concepts like Nationalism, Elitism and other different socio-
political thoughts.
One can safely say that before the beginning of World War I, the social structure of
Europe was breaking down and hence great changes were occurring in the format of alliances
and structures between countries. New urban cultures were developing and ultimately
challenging the existing social order. Basically, Europe was primed for people who needed an act
of destruction to create a new social order and World War I provided such an opportunity.36
One of the important powers of the contemporary European scene was the Ottoman
Empire who joined the Central Powers to form a Triple Alliance when the Turco-German
Alliance was signed in 1914. Turkey entered World War I on 28th October 1914 after they had
bombed the various Black Sea Ports controlled by the Russians. After this event, the ‘Triple
Entente’ of the Allied Powers declared war on the Ottoman Empire.37
Historically speaking, there were two very important factors that led the Ottoman Empire
to get involved in World War I. The German ‘think tank’ continuously pressured the Ottoman
Empire to get involved in the War. In addition, the opportunist Turkish minister of war, Enver
Pasha tried to involve the very prosperous empire in the war. German forces had been winning
initially and directly motivated them to increase their number of allies. Germany had a clear
motive, to prevent Turkey from joining the enemy camp. As they gained the trust of the Ottoman
36 Samuel R. Williamson and Ernest R. May. "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July 1914," (Journal of Modern History vol. 79, no. 2, June 2007), 344.
37 Arno Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (Boston: Croom Helm, 1981), 110.
16
Empire, Romania and Bulgaria also joined the alliance, and hence Germany had a formidable
group of allies. The German military sent a mission to Turkey in 1913, under the command of
Liman Von Sanders, to help the Turkish Government organize the Turkish army and navy. This
was the main highlight of the Turco-Germany alliance and it was a secret treaty that was signed
on 2nd August, 1914.38
The Allies also had strategic interests in the Turkish straits but were disturbed when they
realized that Germany had made Turkey a strong ally. Though Turkey had made a treaty with
Germany, their leadership was afraid of any kind of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and
was always ready to take appropriate decisive action. The Turkish Ambassador, Rifat Pasha,
believed that neither Germany nor Turkey would hesitate to dismantle the Empire during at any
point in time. To be frank, Germany was not as strong as its allies believed and also Turkey,
from every point of view was nothing but a pawn in the ploy, which was designed to hold
various ports to control strategic balance over important trade routes.39
38 Annika Mombauer, "The First World War: Inevitable, Avoidable, Improbable Or Desirable? Recent Interpretations On War Guilt and the War's Origins," (German History vol. 25, no. 1, January 2007), 89.
39 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 761.
17
The Turkey Straits where a sought out goal for Russia’s Naval expansion.40
Enver Pasha justified the alliance on the basis of Germany’s initial success and stressed
the fact that it would surely stop the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. This alliance had
many benefits; Turkey provided secure harbors for German warships well away from the
Russian army that wanted to control Turkey and its harbors. Russia had a long standing
obsession over the possession of the territory and after the Balkan wars in 1912 was afraid that
they might loss control of these strategic straits. In 1913, Russia had threatened to occupy the
Ottoman Empire if it stayed under the command of the German military; however, the military
control was not removed. At that time, the Allied Powers were not that strong and Russia was
40 F.X. Pizon,” The Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Service (TSVTS),”, image, Association Francaise Des Capitaines De Navires. http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html (accessed April 20, 2013).
18
considered as an archenemy of both the Germans and the Ottoman Empire. Empirically
speaking, the Ottoman Empire was a very important power at the beginning of World War I.41
Austria-Hungary was not satisfied with the actions of Serbia. They were waiting for a
reason to mount a full-fledged war against Serbia and the assassination of the Archduke provided
them with an ideal excuse. Along with some other minor grievances, they declared war against
Serbia on July 28, 1914.
Russia, on the other hand, had a treaty with Serbia, which did not involve the military.
That is why Russia mobilized their army to defend their country in the event of attack. However,
Russia was quite a weak power at that time and the mobilization process took longer than
expected being completed in about six weeks.42
This mobilization of the Russian army did not go unnoticed. Germany was an ally of
Austria-Hungary but they gave Russia an inadequate warning and declared war against Russia on
3rd August. They also swiftly invaded Belgium, a neutral country, to reach Paris by the shortest
possible route.
Britain had a treaty with France, but it was more of a moral obligation because both
Britain and France were leaders in colonial endeavors around the World. France suddenly found
itself at war when Germany invaded France. That was the time when Britain declared war on
Germany as the Belgian King requested assistance from Britain when Germany invaded
Belgium. Like France, Britain found itself in a war begun by Austria-Hungary, which was
41 Leonard V. Smith, "The 'Culture De Guerre' and French Historiography of the Great War of 1914-1918," (History Compass vol. 5 no. 6, 2007), 1969.
42 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 176.
19
fundamentally "intended to be a strictly limited war between accuser and accused, Austria-
Hungary and Serbia but it rapidly escalated into a global conflict".43 As Britain entered the war,
her colonies such as Canada, India and Australia-New Zealand were also reluctantly drawn into
the war.
The United States was a late entrant into World War I, as late as April 1917; from the
beginning of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson had tried to keep the United States
neutral. Basically, the average United States citizen had no idea about the turmoil consuming
Europe in the summer of 1914, and many United States tourists were surprised to watch the
developing mayhem when they naively visited.
Wilson as well as his government firmly supported the idea of neutrality in both thoughts
and deeds, and it was clear that when public opinion was canvassed they also preferred
neutrality. The general United States public always viewed the Germans as the stereotypical
‘villains’ of the world. This view was crystallized further when they were told about the German
atrocities in Belgium in 1914.44 Crucially, a German U-boat sunk the British RMS Lusitania, a
passenger ship, without warning and therefore violated international laws. Though the United
States was appeared to remain neutral, the United States Government sanctioned long term loans
to both the UK and France during the time of World War I. But still the United States army was
not prepared for war and mostly was kept on a peacetime state of readiness.45
43 Martin H. Levinson, "Mapping the Causes of World War I to Avoid Armageddon Today," et Cetera 62.2, (Apr 2005), 158.
44 Ruth Henig, The Origins of the First World War, (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 28.
45 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 761.
20
However, in early 1917, Germany decided to go for all out submarine warfare against any
commercial ships heading towards Britain, an action that clearly hurt the trade and commercial
aspirations of the United States. Germany belatedly and rather stupidly realized that these attacks
on shipping would ultimately result in a war with the United States. The German authorities sent
a telegram to the Mexican Government (The Zimmerman Telegram) to seek a military alliance
and this just outraged the United States Government. It was now that Wilson decided to enter the
war and Congress finally voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.46
In 1917, the United States was divided into three separate classes of elites; the anti-war
people who did not want to join in any battle; the Liberal internationalists like President
Woodrow Wilson and former President William Howard Taft who wanted that their armed
forces go and create a collective security system; Atlanticists who wanted to create a secure
relationship with Britain and hence wanted to wage all-out war on Germany. Even upper middle
class businessmen stressed the importance of entering into World War I if only to maintain the
role, stability and balance of the United States on the world stage.
A number of members of the German military high command as well as the government
strongly believed that a German-Russia alliance was inevitable as both countries had conflicting
interests on land issues and the Balkan situation. Germany knew that Russia had a weaker
military and it gave Germany the opportunity to continue the modernization of their military and
industrial capabilities. France, another very important competitor of Germany, was also steadily
increasing its military capacity under a stable political government.
46 Dennis Showalter, "The Great War and Its Historiography," (Historian Vol. 68, no. 4, Winter 2006), 718.
21
Germany, for a long time, had been involved in a naval race for supremacy with Britain.
Many German leaders believed that Germany was surrounded and were involved in an armed
race that was destined to end up in Britain’s favor, if they did not take an offensive stand. So the
German ‘think tank’ believed that war was inevitable and it must be fought sooner or later, and
won in the shortest possible time.47
Also it was clear to the Germans that victory in this war would give them the power to
dominate most parts of Europe and ultimately expand the core of their empire from East to West.
At this time, the German empire lacked colonial lands, in contrast to other big empires of Britain
and France. Both Britain and France controlled large colonies spread throughout the world; even
Russia had colonies in Asia. These countries were able to harvest the natural resources of their
colonies and the steady flow of income from them was huge.48 Germany always wanted ‘a place
in the sun’ and their government believed that if they won the war, they would surely gain much
land from their competitors.
Another threatening situation developed during Ems Telegram episode when Bismarck
fabricated a telegram from the Kaiser’s and released it to the press, igniting fresh diplomatic
agitation between France and Prussia. This telegram discussed diplomatic issues with France in
relation to Spain. The intention was to unite the German speaking populations within the
Prussian Empire but the end result was that France was offended and the Prussian population
47 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 761.
48 Vincent Ferraro, “Statistics on the Extent of Colonialism,” (Mount Holyoke College: International Politics, 2010).
22
agitated. This was a prime reason for the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.49 Again, much like the
Ems Telegram to France, Germany also created similar problems with Austria-Hungary due to a
telegram known as the “Blank Check”.50 It clearly stated that Germany would support Austria-
Hungary if they attacked Serbia. This was a lucrative incentive to make these nations declare war
in near future.
Russia began to believe that both the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary Empire, two
big European powers of the past century were collapsing, and they further believed that powerful
European countries would try to conquer them sooner rather than later. They also thought that
ultimately the Balkans would become a pan-Slavic alliance that could be successfully dominated
by Russia, and then they could turn against Germany. Government officials and military
professionals together with the educated middle class of Russia all believed that Russia should
directly enter this war and win it. In reality, Russian officials were afraid that if they did not enter
into the conflict and act decisively in favor of the Slavs, ultimately they would become
destabilized. Historically, Russia had long waited to capture Constantinople as around half of
their foreign trade used to pass through this region controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Hence a
war would ensure greater trade security and prosperity for Russia.51
Tsar Nicholas II thought cautiously before committing Russia to war, though there was a
part of his court that advised him it would be the wrong move, as the Russian people were
49 Michael Duffy, “Ems Telegram, 1870,”, Firstworldwar.com.
50 Bethmann Hollweg, “The Blank Check.”, July 6, 1914. Letter. (Brigham Young University: World War I Document Archive, 2013). 51 Sean McMeekin, The Russian Origins of the First World War, (New York: Harvard University Press, 2011), 141.
23
against the war. These advisors believed that going to war might trigger a revolution by the
people. But the Tsar stuck to his plan as he, along with major political officials, believed that if
they did not participate in the war, it would undermine the imperial government and could lead
to invasion or revolution in Russia.
France was humiliated in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 when Paris was besieged by
the Prussian army, and the French empire had to surrender. France waited patiently for the
opportunity to restore their reputation on the world stage. Germany had conquered rich industrial
lands such as Alsace and Lorraine in France. At the basic level, France for reasons of French
pride, wanted wage war against Germany to regain these ‘defiled regions’ above anything else.52
In the context of the Moroccan Crisis the issue of miscommunication, lack of
pragmatism, and German arrogance was clear once again. The German Kaiser visited Morocco
without prior warning and without following the proper protocol decided to initiate a trade
agreement that created a tense situation between France and Morocco. The Kaiser also stated that
his visit gave an opportunity to create an equal independent country, and he also stated that
France was in favors of this. This was a diplomatic disaster and it lead to a failure of French
diplomatic policy and enhanced the likelihood of future war.53
Britain was the biggest European power at this time and it was the country least tied into
different treaties that aimed to divide Europe into two sides. Actually, throughout much of the
nineteenth century, Britain had consciously kept herself out of the majority of common European 52 Leonard V. Smith, "The 'Culture De Guerre' and French Historiography of the Great War of 1914-1918," (History Compass vol. 5 no. 6, 2007), 1979. 53 Councillor von Schoen, “The First Moroccan Crisis,”, March 31, 1905, Letter. (Brigham Young University: World War I Document Archive, 2009).
24
affairs, and completely focused on the formation of its Global Empire. But Britain never took its
eye of the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe. Germany was first to challenge this
position as Germany, like Britain, had ambitions to create a Global Empire; in the process they
began to form a mighty navy.54 This event marked the beginning of the naval arms race between
Germany and Britain to gain military superiority on the seas. Many believed that the aspirations
of Germany should be forcibly stopped as their basic tone of competition was violence.55
Another important concern of Britain was that Europe would be dominated by an
enlarged Germany, and if Germany won any war it would surely upset the balance of power in
Europe. Actually, Britain had a moral obligation to both Russia and France, though in the treaties
Britain had signed they were not required to use any kind of military force. Nevertheless, Britain
wanted to make sure that her allies would remain victorious in any battle. They believed that it
would help them maintain their status of being a great superpower.56
54 Zara Steiner, Britain and the Origins of the First World War, (LA: Macmillan Press, 1977), 63.
55 Ruth Henig, The Origins of the First World War, (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 33. 56 Zara Steiner, Britain and the Origins of the First World War, (LA: Macmillan Press, 1977), 41.
25
After the Ottoman Empire lost their grips off the Balkans, a vacuum of power
between the local nations went out of control.57
Austria-Hungary was desperate to conquer the Balkans and to use successfully the power
vacuum created after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. There were a number of nationalist
movements taking place about this time. Austria was already angry at Serbia and the situation
was quite similar when rising Pan-Slavic Nationalism was trying to enable Russian dominance in
the region permanently. Russian dominance in the Balkans would ensure total ousting of the
Austria-Hungary influence in this region.58 They understood that it was very important to destroy
Serbia completely to stay in the power struggle.
57 War Atlas, “The Balkans,”, image, WorldWar1.com. http://www.worldwar1.com/atbalk.htm (accessed April 20, 2013).
58 Michael Duffy, “The Causes of World War One,”, Firstworldwar.com.
26
Turkey held secret negotiations with Germany and then they went on to declare war on
the ‘Triple Entente’ in October, 1914. The idea was to regain the land they had lost while
fighting both the Balkans and the Caucuses. Even they had dreamt of gaining Egypt and Cyprus,
two strategically important countries, from Britain and to justify their war ambitions they had
proposed a Holy War agenda, which was similar to the Crusades.59
The majority of the participating nations at the start of World War I are relative to some
of the responsibility for initiating it. While percentages are too broad to represent an assessment
of the responsibility, history still portrays Germany within the 100% rate. However, through a
better analysis, one can clearly indicates that Austria-Hungary had about 30% responsibility,
Serbia about 10% and Germany circa 30%. It is obvious that Austria-Hungary should be held
responsible to a great extent for the war as the origin of the tension was related to the Balkan
territories issue; the initial cause of the war falls upon these countries and their intension of
completely destroying Serbia makes them the chief culprit in this case.
Serbia is held responsible to some degree because they invited Russia into the conflict
together with Austria-Hungary and paved the way towards a greater political crisis in the
immediate future. It is obvious that Serbia had little choice as Austria-Hungary was a much more
powerful force. Nevertheless, with diplomatic failure, a wish to control Albania and the
invitation of a powerful nation like Russia, Serbia should be held responsible, even though the
allotment of 10% responsibility is rather of low extremities, but this is due to their scale of
involvement throughout the war.
59 Adam R Seipp, "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War," (Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, October 2006), 761.
27
Germany initially remained outside the parameters of direct action and war mobilization
in the initial phases of the Great War but it was Germany who created inflammatory doctored
telegrams, forceful colonization, demanded obedience from Austria-Hungary, displayed
arrogance, and initiated diplomatic calamities. In many ways Germany is the main party
responsible for World War I. Germany together with Austria- Hungary were the main culprits in
causing the War. It is, thus, not a surprise that 30% of the cause of World War I should be
attributed to Germany alone. In addition, Russia, France and Britain can be blamed together for
about 10% of the cause, due to their diplomatic failure to deescalate the extreme tensions that
were clearly present throughout decades. Also, the remaining 10% can be attributed to all other
nations who had participated in the Great War (such as the Ottoman Empire), but had little
relevance to its originating consequences.
Country Responsible for World War I (%)
Germany 30
Austria- Hungary 20
Serbia 10
France 10
Russia 10
Britain 10
Other Countries 10
The question then remains on what were the real causes of World War I? This has been
one of the most important historical questions debated during the last ninety years or so, and
28
there have been many more or less rational explanations. Immediately after World War I was
over all of the victorious nations jointly agreed that Germany was the main cause of the war, and
in the Treaty of Versailles, the ‘War Guilt’ clause was stated as follows: “The Allied and
Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her
allies for causing all the loss and damage to the allied and associated governments”.60 The Treaty
of Versailles also specified that the nationals of these governments "have been subjected as a
consequence of the war imposed upon them to the aggression of Germany and her allies".61
After a few years, the general situation became quite stable, and the War Guilt Section of
the German Government published all the documents regarding the foreign policy of Germany
but they aimed to prove that the Germans should not be solely blamed for starting the war, and
this policy example was reiterated by Russia. Marxist historians believed that World War I was a
direct result of the competition between the interests of different capitalist businessmen and that
Imperialism had played a major role in the development of the conflict. Even political leaders
were blamed for their failure to understand the devastating effects that a war on this level would
have from a socio-economical point of view. Emil Ludwig said: “A peaceable, industrious,
sensible mass of 500 million (European people), was hounded by a few dozen incapable leaders,
by falsified documents, lying stories of threats, and chauvinistic catchwords, into a war which in
no way was destined or inevitable”.62
60 Marshall Dill, Germany: a modern history, (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1970), 273.
61 Allied and Associated Governments, “Treaty of Versailles,” June 28, 1919. Fordham University: Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 1997.
62 Robert John Unstead, A Century of Change, (London: Black, 1966), 62.
29
The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, accepted this blame in his
autobiography and said that Britain ‘muddled its way’ into World War I, and carried on until the
very end of the horrific conflict. A number of revisionist historians do stress that World War I
was the direct result of an amalgamation of interests of several very powerful forces operating in
Europe at that time, like Imperialism, the ideas of Nationalism, the shadowy system of alliance
between different countries, and finally militarism. After the end of World War II, the historians’
view of the causes of World War I had changed dramatically. During World War II, the whole
world came under the dark shadow of a man called Adolf Hitler, and his horrific influence made
most historians believe that like World War II, World War I was also the direct result of German
actions.
Germany had a number of ambitions and aspirations that were instrumental in creating
the conflict and tension in Europe. The Germans had always sought continental supremacy and
wanted to gain the upper hand over the British and French; they were ready to go to any lengths
to achieve this goal. Luigi Albertini, an Italian journalist supported AJP Taylor’s assertion of
German responsibility for World War I. Albertini believed that the German plans for massive
military mobilization was the primary reason for the war; it gave many countries a disturbing
‘shiver up their spines’. The German Schlieffen Plan was aggressively offensive, which was
markedly different from any other countries army mobilization plans. Germany had sent a clear
signal that it was going to war by mobilizing their vast army. However, "The Schlieffen Plan”
(Germany planned to defeat France as soon as possible and then mount a major offensive on the
Russian eastern front) dictated where the war would start and helped fix the locus of the war. But
perhaps its important flaw was that it caused German planners to discount political solutions. It
30
brought Britain into the war, and the Russians had mobilized their forces much faster than the
Germans had anticipated".63
The Schlieffen Plan was devised almost a decade prior to the war, convincing
German officials that a war would become an assured victory.64
In simple words Fritz Fischer, a renowned German historian, assessed the reasons for the
outbreak of World War I and the responsibilities of the German Government in its initiation.
First, the German leaders were always aggressive and willing to go to war at the slightest
provocation. The will to go to war among the German ‘think tank’ personnel prompted the
German army to initiate the war with confident backing. The Germans were fearful about the
foreign policies of other key European countries. They were trying to conquer new territories but
63 Dewey A. Browder, "Schlieffen Plan: World War I," World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, ABC-CLIO, 2013, 24 Mar. 2013.
64 Terence Zuber, "The Schlieffen Plan--Fantasy or Catastrophe?,", image, History Today 52, no. 9 (September 2002): 40. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 21, 2013).
31
most of the earth and its key resources, were already controlled by various imperialist rulers.
Thus Germany, strongly believed that by winning the war that they would surely gain a huge
number of colonies and that the resultant trade and commerce for Germany would grow
immensely.
Germany always wanted to do something nationalistic, which would give its citizens a
sense of national unity because at the end of the 19th century, the unification process of
Germany had just been completed. The Germans were certain that a war would surely give them
a very necessary economic boost. Apart from this reason, there were many other factors, mostly
regarding the colonial issues of Africa and some parts of Asia, which is why the German
government played a catalytic role to mix the events into a fully-fledged war. They believed that
they could orchestrate it in such a way that they could win the war with a huge margin of victory
with minimum effort; how wrong they were. Also they had an expansion plan, which was co-
incidentally very similar to that of the subsequent Nazi expansion plans. There is some historical
evidence that suggests that both Austria-Hungary and Russia longed for a war as a diabolical
solution to their internal troubles, which is a prime example right out of Clausewitz theories.
Russia was in a critical phase of development and a war could have turned the focus to internal
revolution with the people joining together to fight for their rights in their own country.
In summarizing the modern thinking about the reasons that led to World War I, Ruth
Henig stated: “What really marked out the decade before 1914 was a failure of statesmanship
and hope. By 1912, most European governments had come to believe that a general European
32
war was inevitable...The balance sheet in 1918 proved how wrong they had been”.65 Thus, most
of the powers in Europe can be held responsible for World War I, however, through defeat the
country that can be held totally responsible for the war is Germany. History is no stranger to the
spoils of war, therefore, the modern 20th century is no exception.
65 Robert John Unstead, A Century of Change, (London: Black, 1966), 184.
33
Bibliography
Allied and Associated Governments. “Treaty of Versailles,” June 28, 1919. Fordham
University: Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 1997.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1919versailles.asp (accessed March 16, 2013).
Browder, Dewey A. "Schlieffen Plan: World War I." World at War: Understanding
Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. 24 Mar. 2013.
Councillor von Schoen. The First Moroccan Crisis, March 31, 1905. Letter. Brigham
Young University: World War I Document Archive, 2009.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_First_Moroccan_Crisis (accessed March 16, 2013).
Dill, Marshall. Germany: a modern history. Michigan: University of Michigan Press,
1970.
Duffy, Michael. “Ems Telegram, 1870.” Firstworldwar.com.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/emstelegram.htm (accessed March 16, 2013).
Duffy, Michael. “The Causes of World War One.” Firstworldwar.com.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm (accessed March 16, 2013).
Ferraro, Vincent. “Statistics on the Extent of Colonialism,”. Mount Holyoke College:
International Politics, 2010. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/feros-pg.htm (accessed
March 16, 2013).
34
Fromkin, David. Europe's Last Summer: Who Started The Great War in 1914? Auckland:
Knopf, 2004.
F.X. Pizon.” The Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Service (TSVTS).”. Image. Association
Francaise Des Capitaines De Navires. http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html
(accessed April 20, 2013).
Gillette, Aaron. "Why Did They Fight the Great War? A Multi-Level Class Analysis of
the Causes of the First World War." History Teacher vol. 40 no. 1, (November 2006): pp 45–58.
Henig, Ruth. The Origins of the First World War. London and New York: Routledge,
2002.
Hollweg, Bethmann. The Blank Check, July 6, 1914. Letter. Brigham Young University:
World War I Document Archive, 2013.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_%27Blank_Check%27 (accessed March 16, 2013).
Joll, James. The origins of the First World War. New York: Longman, 1992.
Levinson, Martin H. "Mapping the Causes of World War I to Avoid Armageddon
Today." et Cetera 62.2, (Apr 2005), 157-164.
Mayer, Arno. The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War. Boston:
Croom Helm, 1981.
McMeekin, Sean. The Russian Origins of the First World War. New York: Harvard
University Press, 2011.
35
Mombauer, Annika. "The First World War: Inevitable, Avoidable, Improbable Or
Desirable? Recent Interpretations On War Guilt and the War's Origins." German History vol.
25, no. 1, (January 2007): pp 78–95.
Seipp, Adam R. "Beyond the 'Seminal Catastrophe': Re-imagining the First World War."
Journal of Contemporary History vol. 41, no. 4, (October 2006): pp. 757–766.
Showalter, Dennis. "The Great War and Its Historiography." Historian Vol. 68, no. 4,
(Winter 2006): pp. 713–721.
Smith, Leonard V. "The 'Culture De Guerre' and French Historiography of the Great War
of 1914-1918." History Compass vol. 5 no. 6, (2007): pp. 1967–1979.
Steiner, Zara. Britain and the Origins of the First World War. LA: Macmillan Press,
1977.
Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962.
Turner, Frank. Origins of the First World War. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1970.
Unstead, Robert John. A Century of Change. London: Black, 1966.
War Atlas. Image. WorldWar1.com. http://www.worldwar1.com/atbalk.htm (accessed
April 20, 2013).
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. The German Empire, 1871-1918. Berlin: Berg Publishers, 1985.
36
Wertheimer, Mildred. “Program of the Pan-German League, 1890-1898,”. Fordham
University: Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 1998.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1890pangerman.asp (accessed March 16, 2013).
Williamson, Samuel R. Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War.
Auckland: St. Martin's Press, 1999.
Williamson, Samuel R. and Ernest R. May. "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July
1914." Journal of Modern History vol. 79, no. 2, (June 2007): pp. 335–387.
Willmott, Hedley P. "World War I: Russia (Opponent Overview)." World at War:
Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013.
Willmott, Hedley P. "World War I: Russia (Overview)." World at War: Understanding
Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013.
Zuber, Terence. "The Schlieffen Plan--Fantasy or Catastrophe?." Image. History Today
52, no. 9 (September 2002): 40. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 21,
2013).