Responsibility for WWI – Schools of thought
GERMANY WAS RESPONSIBLE:
Germany planned the war to become a greater power, encouraged A-H to
war with Serbia, they had a clear set of aims that would give territorial gains.
Historians: Fritz Fischer (Immanuel Geiss, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jurgen
Kocka – supporters)
Fischer:
 German desire for territorial expansion led to war
 Germany encouraged A-H to start a war with Serbia
 This was done in order to become a world dominating power
 Also done with the idea of directing attention from domestic
discontent
Geiss:
 Germany driven by “Westpolitik” – desire for world power – this
resulted in increase in tension in years preceding July crisis
GERMANY WANTED DEFENSIVE WAR – STILL RESPONSIBLE:
Germany didn’t cold-bloodedly plan the war, they just were trying to defend
and, if possible, expand their territory and a lot of their bluffs didn’t work.
Historians: Egmont Zechive, Karl Erdmann
Zechlin:
 Germany’s support for quick preventative war grew after the Balkans
War resulted in increase in Serbian power
 Germany decided to take opportunity to give A-H blank cheque –
realized Russia was stronger in the Balkans that A-H
 Wanted to bluff Russia but if this failed, wanted war only to replace
alliance system with new balance of power
Erdmann:
 new evidence – Germany’s major consideration was keeping A-H as a
major power
 both of above accepts G’s responsibilities but reject domestic
importance and aggressive INTENT
NATIONALISM
This view argues that WWI grew from the struggle between Slav
nationalism and A-H and the other powers were dragged into a third Balkan
war. However there is also belief that the Balkans caused the occasion of
war, but was not the cause.
Historians: Martel, Joachim Remak, John Leslie, John Jowe
Martel:
 WWI a clash between Slav nationalism and multi-ethnic A-H
Remak:
 WWI was 3rd Balkan War that got out of hand – A-H and Serbia
didn’t care if anyone else got dragged in and must take the major
responsibility for the war – thus Slav nationalism and A-H response to
it was key cause of WWI BUT
 Remak goes further – points out that Germany gave A-H a blank
cheque, Russian mobilization meant localized war was impossible,
France didn’t do enough to restrain Russia and was driven by desire
for revenge over Alsace-Lorainne, which in turn was driven by
nationalism – thus, everyone was at fault but the key underlying cause
was nationalism
 Nationalism also made it possible to gain popular support for war in
the lead up to it
ALLIANCES
The alliance system, which was supposed to help peace, turned a local
quarrel into a general war. OR The lack of a fully effective balance of power
– not it’s existence caused the war.
Historians: Bernadette Schmitt, A.J.P. Taylor, James Joll
Schmitt:
 July crisis was attempt to decide balance of power between Triple
Entente and Triple Alliance
 alliances then converted localized war into general one BUT
A.J.P. Taylor:
 claims that alliances were fragile – couldn’t be the cause of major war
 major powers made plans based on alliances but each nation made
decision to fight on national interest
MILITARISM, ARMAMENTS AND WAR PLANS
A view that the arms race (escalation of) brought about the war. There were
also military aims and a want for a balance of power. There is also a theory
where the military planners who caused the fast-mobilisation are to blame.
Historians: Michael Howard, Niall Ferguson, LFC Turner, AJP Taylor
Howard:
 each armament increase before the war is seen as a threat – increase in
mutual fear and suspicion
 BUT argument that an increase in arms expenditure led to war has
been criticized – A-H spent least of GDP on war (1.9%) yet was
determined to fight
Ferguson:
 role of arms race has been greatly exaggerated – Britain spent most
and wanted war least
Taylor:
 it was plans for war that were significant – considerations within
mobilization were major reason – Russia could only mobilize fully
which led to Schlieffan Plan, which led to France and Britain being
involved – this has been criticized – leaders were taking major
decisions, not generals
IMPERIALISM
That WWI was caused by the imperial rivalry and the growth of empires.
However, these claims have never been fully backed, as there is not enough
evidence to support that there would be economic growth as a result of the
war.
Historians: Marxist writers, Vladimir Lenin
 has been perceived as creating sense of tension and competition
amongst European nations
Zilliacus:
 sees foreign policies as being by business interests – war was caused
not by treaties, etc, but by need to defend imperial interests
 however, no record of any business interest abdicating war – Marxist
view generally rejected
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
The theory that all the Great Powers were to blame for the war. “Germany
did not plot the war… a casualty of its alliance with A-H. A-H… acting in
self-defence against the expansion of Serb nationalism. Serbia… believed
that it would be forced to fight. Russia partly responsible… encouraged
Serbia and mobilised troops. France can be blamed… for support in Russia.
Britain… did hardly anything to restrain Russia or France.” (Fay)
Historians who argue this theory:
Sidney Fay, G.P. Gooch, Gerhard Ritter