6 October 2008, 3:02 pm
Origins of World War I Though Europe in the Twentieth century dominated the world politically, economically, and militarily, it still went to war in 1914. An event such as a war has many complicated causes, but it often has what historians call a "trigger" that sets it off. Many people can agree that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was this “trigger”, however there are many things that contributed to the start of World War I. The origin of World War I can not be simply directed toward a single event but they can be conveniently grouped under five categories: (1) alliances system;(2) militarism;(3) nationalism;(4) economic imperialism; and(5) the newspaper press. It is also important to note that no one country is responsible for the creation of the war. The greatest single cause of the War was the secret alliance system which developed after the Franco-Prussian War. It slowly separated Europe into two aggressive groups of powers who were increasingly suspicious of one another. The members of each group also felt bound to support each other, even in matters where they had no direct interest in, because if they didn’t it would have weakened the unity of the group. Therefore, Germany often felt forced to back up Austria-Hungary with their Balkan policies. If they failed to back up Austria-Hungary, Germany would undoubtedly lose their only thoroughly dependable ally. Likewise, though France had no interests in the Balkans, they felt bound to back up Russia, because if they didn’t the existence of the Dual Alliance would have been threatened, and the French safety from a German attack would have been lost. Similarly, England was convinced it must support France and Russia in order to protect the solidarity of the Triple Entente as a check to the Triple Alliance. In the July, 1914 crisis, it was not a question of Austria, Serbia and the Balkans, it was a question, of the solidarity and prestige of the two groups of powers Europe had become divided into. A second main cause of the war was militarism. Militarism can be broken down in to two groups. First, is the system of creating a great number of established armies and navies. Second, is the officers that strategize tactics and control those armies and navies. This system of having a large male dominated population that would bear arms began with Napoleon during the Revolution. It was then later developed by the Prussians in the War of Liberation. From here, this organized fighting band of brother’s concept acquired many victories in battles to come. It soon came to be esteemed and imitated in the rest of Europe. From the Franco-Prussian War onwards the military and naval organizations of all the Great Powers tended to grow larger and larger. Armaments were supposed to be for defense and for the interests of peace. They were supposed to produce a sense of security for the people and its government. Instead, what they really created was a universal suspicion, fear and hatred between nations. If one county increase its army size, or built new battleships, its neighbors became fearful and constructed their own in order to keep up. This competition in armaments went on in a vicious circle. This can be seen clearly during and after the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Germany and Austria, not sure of Italy’s loyalty, believed they must increase their armaments to assure their own safety. France recommended Russia to increase their army and loaned them a billion francs so they could build a strategic railway against Germany. With armies enhanced and expanded, it did not only give each individual country their own security, but it also strengthened the alliance it belonged to. Militarism also included the governing military and naval officers who created certain scenarios and direct their men to perform those objectives. These officers in every country created attacks, defensives, and revisions of the most complete plans for mobilization and attack to suit all possible situations. During this time period many military officers had this theory that it was promising to take the offensive. This meant attacking the enemy before their mobilization was complete. It meant also that the economic damage, demoralizing political and psychological effects would be occurring on in the enemy’s county instead of this own. Therefore, in this political crisis, the military leaders would always quickly conclude that the war was “inevitable” and would use their influence to convince the civilian authorities to agree to general mobilization as soon as possible in order to gain the advantage of the offensive. However, a general mobilization actually did make war inevitable. It was a procedure that was virtually impossible to stop once it had started. It is almost always at a crisis, when it is most difficult for people to keep their “heads clear and their hands free”. The military leaders used their influence to rush decisions for war. Another way militarism was DO you think this is accurate/correct?... read more
Share on del.icio.us
Share on digg
Share on Technorati
Share on reddit
Share on Yahoo!
Share on Furl