Between July 1914 and November 11, 1918, World War I was in progress. Over 17 million people, including more than 100,000 American soldiers, would be killed by the end of the war. There is a lot more to the origins of war than a simple list of causes can explain. A chain of events led directly to the outbreak of violence, but the root causes are still being debated and discussed...
To better understand the conflict, the acronym M-A-I-N (militaristic tendencies, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism) is frequently cited as the root cause of World War One. It's rudimentary, but it serves as a useful foundation.
During the late 19th century, Europe's major powers engaged in a fierce military competition. As a result of a policy of building a stronger military, a paranoid and alliance-seeking culture was created. Because of the belief that war is good for countries, it was fuelled by the culture. Expanding Germany's naval force was a priority for the country. There was never any real competition in the "naval race," as the British always maintained a clear advantage on the seas. However, the British mania for naval supremacy was strong. In the government's rhetoric, military expansion was exaggerated. Because of their naivety about the scope and violence of a European war, several governments were unable to rein in their aggression.
As the 20th century dawned, a new arms race erupted. After the outbreak of World War I, Germany saw the greatest military buildup increase. Britain and Germany both greatly expanded their fleets during this time period.
Also in Europe, the military's influence on public policy grew, particularly in Germany and Russia. Increasing militarism contributed to the outbreak of war between the contending nations.
European alliances grew between 1870 and 1914, effectively creating two camps – the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance – bound by military or political commitments.
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy formed the Triple Alliance in 1882.
France, Britain, and Russia formed the Triple Entente in 1907.
Austria-Hungary and Russia have historically clashed over their divergent interests in the Balkans, and France harboured deep mistrust of Germany due to their defeat in the 1870 war.
After 1870, Germany under Bismarck established a precedent by playing off the imperial ambitions of its neighbours in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe, which led to the formation of an alliance system.
The countries were also compelled to form alliances as a result of imperial competition. There were colonies that could be traded without affecting the metropolis. They also sparked conflict and cooperation between nations that otherwise would not have interacted. For instance, the Russo-Japanese War (1905) over Chinese ambitions aided in the formation of the Triple Entente..
Germany's imperial aspirations to invade both Belgium and France have been theorised. The rise of industrialism and the pursuit of new markets propelled the expansion of the British and French empires, which in turn stoked German resentment and led to an unsuccessful imperial policy in the late nineteenth century.
However, pre-war rhetoric and strategy do not support the claim that Germany aimed to establish a European empire in 1914.
The rise of nationalism was another major cause of unrest in Europe at the time. In Europe, the interests of the imperial powers were at odds with the aims of the anti-militarism movement. Nations were able to compete in new areas of interest because of the rise of nationalism.
There were large Slavic populations in the Galician and Balkan regions of the Habsburg empire, which posed a challenge to imperial cohesion because of their nationalist aspirations. Historically, Russia has taken an interest in the Balkans because of the rise of nationalism there.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was in fact the result of Serbian nationalist sentiments.
The desire of the Slavic peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina to leave Austria-Hungary and become a part of Serbia was a major factor in starting the war.
In this way, nationalism was directly responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. Nationalist sentiments in Europe were also a major factor in bringing about the outbreak of World War I, but in a more general sense. The nations of the world fought for supremacy and power.
Gavrilo Princip, a member of the 'Black Hand Gang,' a Bosnian Serbian nationalist terrorist group, assassinated Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo. July Crisis was a month of diplomatic and government miscalculations that resulted in war declarations being initiated after Ferdinand's death, which was perceived as the result of official Serbian policy.
A wide-ranging and distorted historical debate exists on this topic. The 'war-guilt' clause was used in the immediate aftermath of the war to imply that the German leadership had reckless expansionist plans in mind. Germans were given the impression that they were bursting with confidence and eager to show off their newfound strength.
Britain's imperial power rationalisation as 'necessary,' or "civilising," didn't apply to German imperialism, which was 'aggressive,' or "expansionist," in contrast. The question of who, if anyone, was the most responsible has been debated throughout history.
As a result, some have claimed that all of the major governments saw this as a golden opportunity to boost their popularity back home.
The Schlieffen plan could be blamed for bringing Britain into the war, Russia could be blamed for the scope of the war because it was the first major country to mobilise, and imperialism and capitalism's inherent rivalries could be blamed for polarising the combatants. Taylor's "timetable theory" emphasises the delicate, highly complex plans involved in the mobilisation, which prompted ostensibly aggressive military preparations.
Every argument has some merit, but the combination of an alliance network and the widespread, erroneous belief that war is good for nations and that the best way to fight a modern war was to attack proved to be the most devastating of all. Whether or not the war was inevitable is open to debate, but the idea of a glorious war, of war as a good for nation-building, was prevalent before 1914. Toward the end of the conflict, it had been wiped out.
Author: Olsen Andersonn
Profile: Online Essay Help Expert associated with LiveWebTutors
Country: United Kingdom
