- This topic has 5 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am currently writing a paper taking a critical look at the origins of the war. I am sure that I will have more to post about it so I can bounce ideas off of people. I am trying to take a critical look at the interpretations that say it was an unavoidable war because of the way war plans worked and the theory of limited choices that say the crisis of July 1914 limited the political choices to such an extent that the war was inevitable. I do not think I buy either wholesale but perhaps the various explanations fit together in such a way that a combination of two or more approaches presents a plausible cause effect relationship. I will see as my research continues…
Krupp did supply arms to everybody pre-war but after the outbreak of hostilities they exclusively built for the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. I dont think the arms trade had a whole lot to do with the tensions that sparked the war. The immediate spark was the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, but there were other issues involved as well. Arms companies were no different then than now, they sold to whoever had the money.
I expect most to consider this the same old soap but you have four main things that combine to drive the world into this war…1) the entangled and often secret alliances among the nations of Europe2) the idea that the use of military force (or threat thereof) was a legit. political tool3) the competition among the nations for imperial holdings (for both economic and political reasons)4) the growing nationalism among minority groups and in Europe generallyBTW, I totally agree about the arms situation... witness the Maxim gun.
I tend to discount reasons # 1 & 4 above.Secret alliances are a sexy scapegoat but that is all they are. The critical points of the defensive alliances that created the two contending power groups were publicly known. The concentration on secret alliances and clauses and their link with causing the war are a vestige of the Versailles negotiations.Nationalism was an issue for the war termination phase but I don?t know that it contributed much to the outbreak of the war except for the nationalism of the Bosnian Separatists that assassinated the Archduke. If anything, the Great Powers were anti-nationalist, particularly Russia and Austria-Hungary which were multi-national empires.The outbreak of the war was more about great power rivalry and maintenance of the balance of power than either secret alliances or nationalism.
This will probably be of little, if any help, but here is my intro paragraph to a paper I wrote about the cause of WWI (Carey really liked this, BTW)
There are many circumstances that led to the First World War, some recent incidents occurred in the first decade and a half of the twentieth century, and some that go further back in history. Did the assassination of Austria?s Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 start the war, or was the war going to occur nonetheless? There were tensions between France and Germany after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 that were never resolved. France, ashamed by the loss of the Alsace-Lorraine territory to Prussia was seeking revenge. How much did the dismissal of Otto von Bismarck, arguably one of Europe?s greatest diplomats, play a role in starting the Great War? Could Bismarck have isolated the war instead of having nearly all of Europe and other non-European nations get involved? There are many reasons or combinations of reasons one could analyze. The decisions made by the Great Powers in the summer of 1914 certainly led the participating European nations to war.
Nice opener!
I tend to discount reasons # 1 & 4 above.Secret alliances are a sexy scapegoat but that is all they are. The critical points of the defensive alliances that created the two contending power groups were publicly known. The concentration on secret alliances and clauses and their link with causing the war are a vestige of the Versailles negotiations.
The balance of power issue you mention later is a holdover from the Congress of Vienna... everyone agreed to keep a lid on revolts, and out of each others hair in Europe. The kicker isn't the two main alliances but the deals that weren't public.
Nationalism was an issue for the war termination phase but I don’t know that it contributed much to the outbreak of the war except for the nationalism of the Bosnian Separatists that assassinated the Archduke. If anything, the Great Powers were anti-nationalist, particularly Russia and Austria-Hungary which were multi-national empires.
Maybe in our sense of nationalism or perhaps, more correctly Imperialism (the mother empire not the colonies)... witness the deal to keep Austria-Hungary together and the old bone of PanSlavism.
The outbreak of the war was more about great power rivalry and maintenance of the balance of power than either secret alliances or nationalism.
I will agree; consider the four reasons I listed as the kindling for the fire... F2 getting blown away the match.For ski: Good to remember the Franco-Prussian War; the ill will over this one, and Alsace-Lorraine is huge. Whipping France in six weeks was also a thorn. Bismarck may have handled things differently as he was super-pragmatic and likely would have foreseen the outcome as unacceptable (at least as it panned out).I've always considered the conflict a family feud; the royal families were all related by blood or marriage (and usually both 😮 ...thank you Queen Victoria). Each of the major players had their minions that they had to back and when the threats began they just ballooned into a fight.Austria threatens the Serbs...Russia backs the Serbs...Germany threatens Russia...France speaks up for Russia when the start to mobilize...Germany attacks France through Belgium...England goes in as a signatory of the treaty guaranteeing Belgium can remain neutral...A gross oversimplification, I know, but in essence what played out.
Hey Scout – what class are you currently in? I'm in an AMU class right now working on a very similar paper.
Vulture, I am currently taking HIST570 Modern European History with Michael Clinton.Remember, Bismarck did not want o annex Alsace-Lorraine, the military commanders including Moltke the Elder pushed for it and Bismarck went along to get them to agree to the bombardment of Paris during the siege.Wally, Balance of Power goes back way farther than the Congress of Vienna, it was one of the reasons behind the wars of Austrian and Spanish Succession in the 18th century.
My understanding of the BofP was that the formaliztion (with the CoV) was to prevent anymore Napoleons… to prevent one country from disrupting the Continent; sort of a safety. History shows no continent-wide wars between the CoV and the summer of 1914.
The Congress of Vienna solidified a conviction and lesson learned from the Napoleonic Wars. Namely, that the great Powers should work together to prevent one nation from gaining hegemony in Europe. Balance of Power was not a new concept at Vienna. The Vienna Congress just formalized what had been a guiding principle of Great Power diplomacy for centuries. you are correct in the Congress formalized Balance of power relationships but was there really a Congress system? I recently read a good book in which the authro argues that there was not or if there was it was failure. The long-19th century was devoid of continent wide wars because their were no issues in which ALL the great powers felt compelled to fight. I would argue that the unification of Germany and Italy in the 1850's 1860's upset the Balance of Power in Europe and their unification is one of the main reasons for the international tensions that led to WWI.
