In considering the feelings of the German people, prior to the start of World War 1 (WWI), what is noted by Hewitson 2004 as causation and supporting that fact that conflict was inevitable was the development of the German middle class who were intent on pursuing diversionary and expansionist policies. This nationalist policy called ‘a Fluct nach vorn’ drew together the fractions within German society and as a result, created the need for an enemy, allowing for the West, including Britain, France, and America, along with Russia to operate as the focus of this nationalism. In creating a nationalist society, conflict with Germany’s neighbors, highlighting the strained relationships which focused on the acquisition of land, with Germany allying itself and protecting Austria against the Serbs, created a trickle-down effect which led to all-out war by the superpowers of that time period (39). As Germany’s lone friend in the region, Austria …show more content…
In an argument which suggests that the Russians sought to engage the Germans and avoid war was eventually reconsidered as it became clear that the Germans were pursuing expansionist policies. With the Czar of Russia having relatives with the German empire hierarchy, consequently supported the premises and ideas for reconciliation, but as the situation deteriorated, Russia’s desire for land post-victory, WWI, ultimately minimizing Germany’s strength in Eastern Europe, supported going to war, reinstituting Russia as the dominant power. Therefore, Nicholas in declaring war and aligning himself with Britain was considered the smart, safe move in promoting Russian interests (7). As the allies all sought land gains and increased prestige among their peers, greed for land and power was a primary factor that once started, could not be stopped on either
Clausewitz’s thoughts on war termination effectively summarize the situation for the Japanese and Russian Empires preceding peace negotiations, “Inability to carry on the struggle can, in practice, be replaced by two other grounds for making peace: the first is the improbability of victory; the second is its unacceptable cost.” (Clausewitz, 91). The Japanese effectively identified their culminating point of victory and predicted that continued success would be highly improbable. The Russian Empire had the means to eventually turn the tide of the war, but the cost to do this was unacceptable. As a result, both chose to negotiate peace while continuing to take steps to improve their negotiating position. The Russo-Japanese War highlights the Japanese Empire’s ability to effectively plan, execute and negotiate the termination of a war, despite being considered a vastly inferior power at the onset of war.
Even prior to the Austro-Prussian War, there were divisions between the two states. Though they were allies for many years due to the German population that existed in both, they began to both grasp for power within the German states. One example of this power struggle occurred in the Zollverein, an economic association that Prussia led. Prussia did not want Austria to be part of this economic group and thus “blocked Austrian entry into the Zollverein.” In 1849-1850 the states were even on the brink of war. Prussia attempted to create a German union, with itself at the forefront, but Austria “called the Prussian bluff by adopting a belligerent posture.” As a result, Prussia lost what power it had accumulated in the maneuver when it signed the Olmutz Convention, which “re-established the old German Confederation.” Two wars were also influential on the conflict between Austria and Prussia. In the Cri...
With the absence of the strong sense of pride in one’s nation and the belief that one’s nation was destined for greatness, which were popular European sentiments the twentieth century, the brutal war that divided the continent for more than four years would not have occurred. The most significant cause of the First World War was nationalism, as this aspect created the tension and aggression between European nations that lead to rivalry and antagonism, and it exposed the common interests and goals that persuaded particular nations to collaborate to defeat their shared enemies. Firstly, nationalism provoked conflict between nations, as it planted the strong desire for power and superiority within the minds of European leaders, as well as the
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.”
There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia's influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria's closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia's Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist revolts.
Nationalisms powerful and intense impact on individuals is demonstrated in Rudolf von Ihering’s Two Letters (1866). By offering individuals a group to be a part of became something which appeared to be boundless in its potential for prosperity and it gave individuals a sense of empowerment. Initially, Von Ihering had rigorously opposed Realpolitik’s policies which were employed by Otto von Bismarck, declaring that, “everyone [in Ger...
To carry on, prior to World War I, numerous wars such as the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, or the Opium War of China had been fought, but mostly for the sole purposes of territorial expansion or acquiring resources. However, “World War I was greeted with incredible enthusiasm. Each of the major belligerents was convinced of the rightness of its cause, demonstrating the power of nationalism.” (William J. Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel, World History, vol. 2, 667). After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the views of war changed drastically, and a new romantic idea about the war was born. War was now perceived as a great opportunity to prove an individual’s or nation’s greatness. “Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
The first global world war that led to the death of millions of people and the use of excessive chemical weapons, tanks, and machine guns that the world has ever witnessed is accused by Germany’s violent actions and their extreme ideologies, but some others argue Germany was not the sole cause of the war. In an attempt to dominate the world, Germany enforced their extreme ideologies to the rest of Europe. Many scholars believe that Germany fueled World War 1 because Germany believed that they should conquer the weak. Some people believe that Germany was the sole cause of World War because their extreme ideologies led them to declare war on other countries. Although Germany deliberately supported Austria to go to war with Serbia, supported the idea of Nationalism, and signed secret treaties, Russia also supported Serbia and signed secret treaties. Thus, Germany wasn’t the sole motive of World War 1.
It is possible that with no other country in the twentieth century clearly on the inevitable road to war has there been as much unpreparedness and complete lack of all comprehension than that of Russia prior to World War I. For the few years before 1914 and the start of the war, especially following the embarrassing loss to Japan, Russia recognized its eminent clash with Germany. The way with which it conducted its international relations and internal affairs is puzzling to say the least.
Prussia was well prepared for war, with three Prussian armies sweeping Bohemia, and the battle of Sadowa, Austria suffered defeat. Nationalism was viewed in so many different ways by so many different leaders and society. Many conflicts and wars had a long term impact on Nationalism, but some conflicts had a small impact on Nationalism. The Frankfurt Constitution was written and published and is a document of German History today. The article “On the Duties of Man”, by Giuseppe Mazzini and how the map of Europe was redrawn, which had a huge impact on Nationalism.
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 use of nationalism (defined as patriotic feelings, principles, or efforts) as a rallying point is a double-edged sword. The development of pride in, and love for, one’s nation can lead to a unified effort in its development. When carried to excess, however, it is often a basis for the subjugation of others, and a rallying cry and justification for war. It is thus a manipulative tool, readily used for good or ill depending on the motivations of those employing it. This paper will narrowly examine its development and effects in some of the events leading to and resulting from the first World War.
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.
However, the looseness and backwardness of their territories did not stop the Russians from wishing to extend their influence. " The Warner 5. Albert Seaton believes that the Tsar Nicholas did not want war, but it was part of his political strategy to bring Europe to the brink of hostilities in order to intimidate those who opposed him. " He would undoubtedly have taken even greater risks if only France and Turkey had been involved, but he was worried by the close interest taken by the British in the Middle East, for the islanders were already openly assessing the armed strengths there and did not conceal their low opinion of the value of the Black Sea Fleet."
If we define “Total War” as a type of warfare that affects and involves every part of a society, then World War I can be argued to be the first attempt by military and political leaders to engage in such a conflict. Modernity was at Europe’s door thus leading to the inventions and innovations that would allow for war on a scale, and of a scope, that had never before been considered. Yet, it was not the fact that these innovations and technologies existed, or that specific conflicts necessitated war, but rather that the political and military elite, coming out of an age of pompous militarism, made decisions based on previous experiences and not on future possibilities. These decisions had an adverse affect not only on the outcome of the war politically (as far as treaties and borders were concerned), but it affected individuals at a grassroots level creating a subsequent era of distrust, listlessness, and eventual aggressive feelings creating the perfect storm out of which Nazism could rise.