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).