For many of the great European powers, war proposed the incentive for achieving various desired rewards; for Germany, the war posed many new economical advantages and the restoration of overall European balance, which was vigorously changing due to the weakening of the Triple Alliance and the tightening of the Triple Entante, for Serbia, the achievement of nationalistic unity for all Serbians, while for Austria it posed elimination of nationalistic tendencies that threatened Austria’s overall revival as a great power. For Russia, the war presented opportunity to fully control Constantinople and the straits; for France, the recovery of Alsace-Lorrain; and for England, the destruction of the opposing German naval armies as well as the Prussian military . Yet, while all of these advantages were incredibly strived for by all of the powers, there is no proof that one country or specific person deliberately struck up war with the sole purpose of achieving those advancements. After war had begun, there were surprisingly various expressions of enthusiasm among each great power. While Serbia, Austria, Russia, and Germany all had a considerable interest in the war, there was noticeably less in France, with little to none in England. But, this does not mean that the citizens of these countries wanted war or showed a decisive influence to further the desire for war. Nevertheless, war did inevitably break out because in each country leaders performed certain actions (or failed to, for that matter), which caused a domino affect of conflicts that led to mobilization and battle. One must abandon the theory (which was largely influenced by massive misconceptions) that the deterioration of Bismarck’s Alliance system was the cause of WWI, because n... ... middle of paper ... ... greater source of damage to the peace of Europe Although one can not discount that the system of Alliances divided Europe into two antagonistic groups, (which were then accentuated by an increase of armament, economic rivalry, and propagandist newspaper incitement ), had each of the country’s intervened (or not intervened for that matter), it is most likely that these conflicts would not have led to war. It is undeniable that World War I was extremely large and widespread throughout many nations, and if that is the case, then the blame cannot be placed solely on Bismarck’s system of Alliances. Therefore, it was the fault of each country, and the blame must be shared between Austria, Russia, France, Germany, and England; each taking the blame for the obvious mistakes they made leading up to the war, and during the ongoing, strenuous battles.
While the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the initial flame, there were four underlying causes that worked to trigger the commencement of the First World War. Militarism, Alliances, Nationalism and Imperialism played colossal roles in Europe at the time, thus being aspects that could certainly have blame placed upon. Militarism is the nation’s build up of a strong army due to the belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability and use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests. Alliances are bonds created between countries for mutual benefit. Nationalism is the spirit of a nation, often referred to as an extreme form of patriotism. Imperialism is the policy of extending the rule and influence
So when asking the question what the causes of World War One are its important to remember that the rivalries between European states were intensified by the imperialism of the 19th century. Which lead to tension which became fear of invasion that in turn resulted in an intricate system of alliances “ensured what might have been an isolated crisis in the Balkans became a general war”. Whilst the effects of imperialism may not be the single cause of the war, it was undoubtedly a contributing
In 1914, Europe was diving into two separate powers. One was Triple Entente composed of France, Russia and Britain. Other one was Triple Alliance, consists of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. (Pope 2) Each of the countries was connected with different treaties. The caused of European countries’ unstable political situation and threat of war was present. By arranging alliances with other governments, most countries found ways to protect themselves from assault. While Germany was becoming the center of the struggle, Europe made a spider web of tangled alliance that led most countries into two opposing powers. (Hamilton 16) In the late nineteenth century, the most surprising event in Europe was the birth of united state of Germany. Under the leadership of the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, system of alliances was established to achieve peace in Europe. By 1890, Bismarck succeeded in having every major power into his alliance system...
The last battle of the Bismarck changed the tides during World War II. The Bismarck was Germany’s most famous battleship during World War Two, and was sunk on May 27, 1941. The Bismarck had already sunk the battleship HMS Hood before being sunk herself. For many, the end of the Hood and Bismarck symbolized the end of the time when battleships were the dominant force in naval warfare, to be replaced by submarines and aircraft carriers and the advantages these ships gave to naval commanders.
Immediately after the peace agreement, November 1918, solely Germany was held responsible for the outbreak of the War. In this essay I will question that statement by emphasizing the attitude of the main powers and take into account other causes historians assume, especially the current ideological ideas in Europe and the events in the Balkans. Nevertheless, I will conclude that none of these reasons were solely the cause of the outbreak, but the combination of them all, and especially hegemonic ambitions and the lack of diplomacy.
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
The underlying cause of World War 1 were the alliances within Europe. An alliance meant that if one country goes to war than the country associated will also fight. All the countries were picking sides before the war started. Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor that led the unification of the German states, did not like the fact that Germany was between Russia and France. “Bismarck formed the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in the year preceding
National interest was a key factor in the explosive beginning of World War One. By looking at the Naval Arms Race, the People’s Revolt in Austria-Hungary and European alliances, it can be shown that national interest was a significant factor in contributing to World War One. The ultra nationalistic views of many countries overruled their ability to act in a just and logical manner. It was in the years following the formation of the Triple Alliance in which the desire and craving for power grew, and created insincere relationships and unrealistic portrayals of other countries intentions.
The focus of this study is the effect that Otto Von Bismarck's leadership and politics had on Pre-World War One tensions in Europe. This study investigates to what extent the actions of Otto Von Bismarck led to World War One. The focus of this study is the period between Bismarck's appointment to Minister President of Prussia on September 23, 1862 and the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. Bismarck's earlier career is discussed briefly but only as a method to understand his political attitudes. And similarly, as Bismarck was removed from office in 1890, the only events discussed between 1890 and 1914 will be based off of policies instilled by Bismarck, not those of Wilhelm II.
This set a belligerent mood in Europe as each nation was prepared to fight a war. A German officer once said "in time of peace, prepare for war," and that is exactly what European nations did, eventually leading to the Great War. Without a doubt, the one underlying cause of the three described above that was most responsible for World War I was the system of alliances.
Alliances played a hefty role in the inevitability of World War One. Countries were constantly at each other’s necks and needed power in order to protect themselves from each other. This is where alliances came in; countries could seek shelter from others by developing truces with close friends. Having a truce was beneficial in most ways because it provided the illusion of being a bigger power, and offered one extra support in case of a crippling event. Then again they did also create tensions between the countries that could only escalate further. For example, in the year 1879 there was a dual alliance created between Germany and Austria-Hungry. This alliance was created to protect them from Russia, who ...
There were several long-term events that led to the outbreak of World War One. The most prominent factors include: nationalism, militarism, imperialism, the Balkan and Morocco crises, and the alliance system. Ironically, these things were either started in response to, or upheld because of, one of the other factors. The alliance system was one of the last factors to emerge before the war. Consequentially, the contributions of this system to the beginning of the Great War have to be considered. Although the alliance system was a main cause of the First World War, it arose because of several other factors, and did not cause the war single handedly.
The Alliances not only contributed to war breaking out; it made the war last longer and become on a much larger scale; major political disputes would inevitably cause a large conflict. The alliances caused suspicion, fear, and tension among nations. The two camps were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary). When countries formed alliances with each other it gave them protection, if a country was threatened or under attack then the alliance would come to that country’s aid. Countries made an alliance when they both needed protection from a stronger country. When Austria-Hungary had heard about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand they went to war with Serbia which resulted in a chain reaction of countries going to war with one another, and when countries teamed up to support their attacked friends when war came, it meant that a number of nations would fight, not only the two involved in a dispute. The division of...
The growth of the European super powers during the 19th century consisted of the great powers vying for territorial attainments, developing their international influence, and ensuring positive domestic attitudes of their diplomatic actions. Attempting to cement their hegemony of international politics, the Prussian Empire sought to create an ethnically and politically unified German state to rebuff the prominence granted to Austria at the Congress of Vienna. Through the machinations of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and his determination to unite the German lands through “blood and iron”, Germany quickly rose to become the epicenter of European politics and forever changed the geopolitical landscape of Europe. In examining the unification of Germany and its implications for the international system, this paper will explore the prehistory of the unification, significant diplomatic successes and failures during the bolstering of Germany’s power, and the change in the power structure of Germany that ultimately changed the military landscape of the international system and became the precursor for World War I.
The importance of the alliance system that developed in Europe in the decades before World War I as a cause for it is still an important topic of debate and argument between modern historians. Some argue that the alliance system was a direct cause of the outbreak of war between all major countries in Europe while other historians prefer to state that the alliance configuration we observe before the war started was simply a symptom of the conflicts and disagreements, fears and envies that had been accumulating since the Bismarck system of alliances collapsed, and even before then. This last opinion is becoming more accepted as the one that describes the true importance of the actual alliance system as a cause of the war. In order to determine the importance of the alliance system as a cause for the war we must first explore the origins of these alliances. We will take high-point of the Bismarck system in 1878 as our starting point as the Franco-Prussian war is a key factor for the development of this system.