GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE CAUSES OF
WORLD WAR ONE
(1914-1918)
IDEAS OLD AND NEW
GCE LEVEL HISTORY, BWIC
MR. NICHOLS, 2007-8
1
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
WHO STARTED THE WAR?
History (and even pre-history) is one, almost continuous, story of
confrontation and invasion. The current state of the world shows this only too
well. Since WWII alone, there have been well over a thousand wars: some
have lasted days, others years.
Discussion Point

What contemporary conflicts are taking place?

Why do people fight wars?
What made the First World War, the so-called ‘Great War’, in the minds of
contemporaries, at least, was that it was the first truly global conflagration in
history (given the extent of the participants’ empires). However, in other
ways, it was arguably not unique, especially, in terms of its basic causes. A
combination of circumstances at the time and Mankind’s innate, inherent
failings, led to a conflict that would eventually see the deaths of over 9 million
human beings. It was a war, in other words, that cost over 6000 lives (or two
9/11’s) a day - for four and a quarter years.
Contemporaries, however, regarded the possibility of a long war unlikely. The
German Crown Prince looked forward to a ‘bright and jolly war’. The British
foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey argued that the War would not last long
and be over by Christmas, on the logic that a war between the Great Powers
would be too ruinous to continue long.
Wars are rarely, if ever, ideological. Wars are fought for far baser ideals than
their participants are prepared to admit. In my opinion, the ‘just war’ concept
has always been something of a myth. WWI was never a ‘just war’, despite
each side proclaiming that it was.
Cynicism is something that is unavoidable when studying the causes of wars,
and is an especially useful state of mind to take when looking at the reasons
for the First World War.
But while WWI was, in many ways, not unique, it does have its peculiar
causes. Even so, it is still very much an adequate and representative
reflection of the follies of Mankind.
2
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE THREE THEORIES
A war, which had such appalling consequences as the one of 1914-1918 had,
has to have blame accorded somewhere.
It seems to me that are basically three approaches to the question. I would
summarise these as:
-
‘It was Nobody’s Fault’
‘It was Everybody’s Fault’
‘It was Austria’s and, especially, Germany’s Fault’
Theory 1: It was Nobody’s Fault
Often called the ‘tragedy of miscalculation’ theory, it is a view propounded
most energetically by L.C.F. Turner (1970). He argues that no one power
really wanted war. He stresses the pacific feelings in 1914, of certain major
powers and the misconceptions of the statesmen involved. His main
contention is that: the eminent and wily statesmen of Europe had no real
grasp of the technical issues connected with mobilisation, and so they failed to
grasp its strategic and political implications. The War memoirs of David Lloyd
George who commented that nations “slithered” into the conflict, concur, but
are no more convincing.
Discussion Point

What significance, do you think, should be attached to the fact that
Turner was a professor at the Royal Military College of Australia?
Theory 2: It was Everybody’s Fault
After the war, and partly in a spirit of reconciliation, it was increasingly argued
that no one power had been responsible for bringing about the war. In the
1920s and 30s, the so-called ‘Anglo-Saxon historians’ like Fay, Barnes and
R.H. Lutz gradually began to relieve Germany of sole blame for causing the
war. Such views can perhaps best be supported by looking at Britain’s role in
helping to bring about the conflict.
GB has been accused of being, while not overly aggressive, at least
dangerously ambiguous in her aims and intentions towards Germany and the
continent. Some historians (notably Geoffrey Barraclough and, most recently,
the revisionist Niall Ferguson) have gone further and put a lot of the blame
squarely on British shoulders. Germany, it is claimed, did not know what GB
would do, once she put the infamous Schlieffen Plan into operation. Would
GB support France? Would she support her other partner (but also imperial
rival), Russia?
However, these views have one main drawback, in my opinion: the infamous,
if controversial, so-called ‘War Council’ of 8th December 1912.
Held by the German Kaiser (Wilhelm II), with his main military advisors, to
plan a future war in Europe that Germany could win, it referred also to the
German realisation, provided by Lord Haldane that GB would actively
3
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
intervene on the side of France, to maintain the balance of power in Europe,
and thus prevent German hegemony. By utilising the Schlieffen Plan,
Germany must have known it would be unleashing a major war (itself a
reflection on the severe limitations of the Plan itself and the limited scope for
tactical and strategic initiative it allowed).
We should also note that Fay and Barnes themselves have limitations as
historians, in that they may have been hoodwinked by the German authorities
into accepting German blamelessness. Certainly, they had links with the exKaiser (in the post-war years, exiled in the Netherlands) and other former
members of the imperial government. How much, therefore, are their views
objective history? Even at the time, contemporary historians like Renouvin of
France and Schmitt of the US were vigorously disputing their findings. Ruth
Henig also absolves France, Russia and even Serbia of much of the blame for
the War, pinning the blame on Germany instead.
Homework Assignment

What was the Schlieffen Plan? Show your understanding in
diagrammatic form. Be prepared to explain it to the class.
Theory 3: It was Austria and Germany’s Fault
The other traditional, but frequently challenged view, is that Germany and her
close ally Austro-Hungary bear the brunt of responsibility for the instigation of
the war. Certainly, Article 231 of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, laid the blame
squarely on Germany and the Kaiser for starting the war. But then, history is
always written by the victors and the treaty is, as such, hardly a reliable
source of evidence!
In the 1960s, however, the whole debate was re-awakened with the 1961
publication of Fritz Fischers’ ‘Griff Nacht der Weltmacht’ (Germany’s grasp for
world power). This seminal work still holds sway.
To Fischer and his disciples (Immanuel Geiss et al), Germany had caused the
War and indeed did bear ultimate responsibility for it. This assertion caused
an almost hysterical amount of controversy in German academic circles.
Serious accusations, of a personal and academic nature, were levelled at
Fischer by men like Professor Gerhard Ritter and later, H.W. Koch, jealous
perhaps also of his fame and his access to the state archives, in Potsdam,
East Germany, which as West Germans they could not get near!
Germans, it seemed, could not contemplate the fact that their countrymen had
indeed caused two world wars. A theory like Fischer’s, even seemed to
endanger possibilities for future German re-unification.
H.W. Koch has criticised Fischer’s research methods and selectivity, while
admitting they are those frequently used in German academia! Koch takes a
more benign view of Imperial Germany stressing its defensive postures and
geographical exposure in the middle of Europe, quoting the famous maxim of
G.P. Gooch, that: ”Geography is the mother of history”.
What does: “Geography is the mother of history”, mean?
4
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Koch claims Germany wanted security above all else. Germany feared an
Anglo-Russian seaborne invasion. He even speaks of the Schlieffen Plan as
a “preventative, defensive stroke”. He points out the Germanophobia of highranking British officials, and that Germany was bound to support her one true
ally, Austro-Hungary (1879). Koch goes so far as to say that, to the British,
war in Europe was preferable to war elsewhere and that preservation of its
empire mattered more to GB than anything else.
A lot of what Koch says is controversial. What I aim to show is that the
reasons for the War can be divided into ‘long-term causes’ and ‘short-term
triggers’, and that contrary to what Koch says, Germany and the Kaiser, did
indeed play the dominant, though admittedly not the sole role, in bringing
about the world’s greatest and bloodiest war to date.
A whole host of historians have re-iterated this argument including Dominic
Lieven, Norman Stone, John Moses and Herwig. Luigi Albertini in his
magisterial three volume history also famously pronounced Germany guilty.
Discussion Point
What does it mean, when we say history is more grey, than black or white, in
nature?
Table of Historiography on Causes of WWI
Nobody
Everybody
5
The Germans
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR
The causes of WWI, is a controversy ‘par excellence’. It is also a question
without a definite answer. Even contemporaries did not fully understand what
or who had caused the war. We may have the benefit of hindsight, but we
can only accord, tentatively, degrees of blame, though the inimitable A.J.P.
Taylor would dispute even that, as to him, blame is non-existent with great
countries (“powers will be powers”).
We can never answer a question on the causes of the Great War; we can only
ever discuss the various possibilities.
In examining the various possible causes and contributory factors we can, I
believe, choose to stress certain ones and de-bunk others.
In my opinion, imperialism, the internal problems of the great powers and their
economic rivalries, were key factors. However, it is often easier to criticise a
theory than to support one and that is what we will do first, by examining one
of the factors that did NOT cause the War, but has sometimes been stressed
as an important factor.
We need to de-bunk the conspiracy theory that the War was caused by the
armaments industry. Brian Bond in his book, ‘War and Society in Europe,
1870-1970’ outlines five convincing arguments to prove that the armaments
producers did not bring about the War.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
It was not in the general interest of arms firms either to stimulate war or
to become involved in customers’ internal problems: stable govts.
offered the best prospects for orders; arms firms were unable to cope
with demand once the War began and govts. tended to take over
munitions production.
Cartels of arms firms were an economic necessity, not an international
conspiracy;
Arms dealers may have been corrupt and indulged in bribery, but this
was neither new nor unique to them. Such inducements were
necessary to obtain, as opposed to create, new orders;
The arms industry actually had many beneficial spin-offs for domestic
industry and for technological developments as a whole;
Govts., if they had not bought weapons, would not necessarily have
invested in the social infrastructure of their nations. There were no
welfare states in 1914. If they hadn’t spent on arms they may not have
spent at all.
Ruth Henig also stresses that banks and businesses stood to lose rather
than gain from war.
However, though we must dismiss the role of the arms manufacturer, we
cannot dismiss the role of the arms race, itself resulting from the evils of
nationalism, xenophobia and militarism.
6
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE LONG-TERM CAUSES
A. The Role of Militarism
Europe prior to WWI, was engaged in an arms race to greater and lesser
degrees, depending on the country, and according to the principle (if we view
these countries favourably) of ‘si pacem vis para bellum’ – if you desire
peace, prepare for war.
However, most of the great powers of Europe and elsewhere, had no
intentions of being peaceful and instead had long traditions of using force to
achieve their aims (so-called ‘gunboat diplomacy’).
War was an instrument of power politics favoured by all. Gunboat diplomacy
was thus rife, and imperialist wars fought, almost as a matter of fact.
Political violence, even within countries, was far more prevalent than today.
The military were frequently essential instruments of state control. Even in
relatively democratic GB, the army was used to crush strikes and demos,
sometimes bloodily.
However, the degree of militarism varied starkly between countries.
Austria-Hungary
Chief amongst those who believed in military solutions to political problems or
what was known as the ‘preventative war’ was Conrad von Hotzendorff. He
wanted a premeditated strike at the heart of Pan-Slavism, Serbia. He, and
others like him, were afraid that Slavic nationalism would cause the
disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
In an empathetic sense, we should perhaps realise such views were
essentially defensive, but they can also be interpreted as imperialist and warmongering.
To Bernadotte Schmitt Austro-Hungary’s culpability in causing WWI is strong.
He accuses her of a denial of self-determination to minority peoples within the
Habsburg empire and claims this was the crucial cause of WWI.
Discussion Point
What is empathy? How can we use empathy in studying WWI?
Kaiser Wilhelm II – Unstable megalomaniac?
7
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Germany
Certainly, to contemporaries, Germany, and specifically Prussia, was the
arch-militarist state, a view that even on closer inspection still rings true.
K.D. Bracher describes the German state as essentially Prussian, militaristic
and authoritarian, though it was perhaps not as unique in this, as Immanuel
Geiss would argue it was.
Certainly, the officer corps was drawn from the reactionary, junker class; the
middle class citizen’s dream was to become an officer in the reserve. There
was an almost ubiquitous respect for the military (shown by the ‘Captain of
Koenig’ incident), absent in many other countries.
By 1914, Germany had a standing army of 800 000 men, with a further 5m
trained reservists. The govt. spent 90% of its income on ‘defence’ (Russia, in
1913, spent 58% of its income on the armed services, suggesting it was not
only the German government that regarded military expenditure favourably).
The building of the High Seas Fleet nearly bankrupted the German state.
General von Bernhardi, and other military advisors, stressed the importance
of expansion to secure Germany’s future. Thereby, as with Austria,
aggression was justified as both defensive and preventative in purpose. Prior
to 1914 hundreds of miles of track were laid going in the direction of the
Belgian border – clearly in line with the strategy of the Schlieffen Plan.
To the unstable and ambitious Kaiser, himself a devotee of all things military,
the High Seas Fleet was the means to such an end. He wanted his empire to
become as great as GB’s – by emulating British methods.
The building of the German fleet was thus the pinnacle and, in a way, the
logical outcome, of the European arms race mania; however, it was a
situation that helped to make the continent fatally unstable.
A.J. Marder (1961), stressed the significance of the naval rivalry, claiming that
while it did not cause the War, it determined that GB would be on the side of
Germany’s enemies.
Brian Bond also emphasises its destabilising effects by stating that:
“The Anglo-German naval race did not cause the First World War, but it
played a significant part in preparing an explosive situation, which was
detonated elsewhere”.
HMS Dreadnought
Built Portsmouth Dockyard, laid down October 1905, completed December 1906, cost £1,785,683.
Size:
Length 520 feet waterline 527 feet overall, beam 82 feet 1 inch, draught 26 feet 6 inches (normal),
displacement 18,120 tons normal 20,730 tons deep
Propulsion:
4 shaft Parsons turbines, 23,000 shp, 21kts.Trials:
24,712 shp = 21.05 knots
Armour:
11-4in belt, 11in barbettes, 11in turret faces, 3-1.5in decks
Armament:
10 x 12in 45cal MK X (5 x 2), 24 x 12 pounder (24 x 1), 5 x 18in TT
8
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
France
France was certainly a less militaristic country than Germany. She was more
constitutional and less autocratic. However, as the Dreyfus affair had shown,
the French army was largely reactionary and anti-Semitic in nature. French
troops were engaged in imperialist ventures around the globe (and, as in
Indo-China, frequently committed atrocities), while as in Germany also, there
was a system of national military service (which was considerably lengthened
in 1913).
The army tended to be anti-democratic and papers like ‘La France Militaire’
called for a “beautiful” war against the barbaric Hun.
However, in the provinces at least there was a great degree of passive
feeling. Henig emphasises that the thoughts of revanche for the loss AlsaceLorraine, were no longer dominant, national feelings. The conscription bill of
1913, which increased the length of military service to 3 years, was opposed
and unpopular, but a response to increases in German military spending.
Great Britain
Here the situation with regard to the armed forces, was decidedly more
ambivalent, especially vis a vis the army (the navy was more popular).
The British army, in contrast to nearly all those of the other great powers, was
elatively small and entirely voluntary. British ‘Tommies’ were sometimes
lauded as heroes, most times ignored or even despised. However, an officer
corps of sorts did exist: drawn from the public schools and the upper and
upper middle classes; men who were often regarded as fit for nothing else,
but soldiering. Being an officer was, at best, mildly respectable. Militarism,
however, was despised, though wars like the Boer War of 1899-1902, brought
thousands flocking to the colours. Equally, it should be remembered that
1914 also saw hundreds of thousands volunteer, though the supply was soon
to dry up.
9
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
B. The Role of Nationalism & Xenophobia
All Europeans to a greater or lesser degree were nationalists. Many were
also xenophobes. Any sense of Pan-Europeanism was absent.
The books and novels of the time were frequently concerned with the
likelihood of war and invasion.
In Germany, there was ‘Der Weltkreig’ (1904), which depicted a fictional
German conquest of GB. In GB itself, William Le Queuz’s ‘Invasion of 1910’,
sold numerous copies, as did Erskine Childers’ ‘Riddle of the Sands’ (also
published in 1903). Both novels represented Germany as aggressive and
expansionist.
Such right-wing, scare-mongering literature, not only actively prepared their
respective populations for war, but made it, arguably, more likely by spreading
rumour and suspicion.
Schools helped imbibe nationalist pride. Sir Michael Howard, the eminent
military historian has even stated that if: “the youth of rival countries howled
for war in 1914, it was because for a generation or more they had been taught
to howl”. J.M. Roberts says nationalism provided “psychological and
emotional support” to governments.
There were National and Navy Leagues in Germany and GB. Britain may not
have had conscription, but the National Service League (estd. 1902) wanted
its introduction. In France, Russia and Austria, there were similar pro-military
organisations.
In Austria-Hungary and its empire, there were even proto-fascist parties like
the Workers Party of Austria (led by the infamous Karl Lueger, a man the
young Hitler admired) and the Czech National Socialist Party. In the
Habsburg Empire in fact, there was no unified opposition party to oppose the
will of the autocratic and reactionary Emperor, Franz Josef. Instead parties
were organised along national boundaries.
Such organisations and leagues that existed in pre-War Europe had often a
no. of elements in common with each other: they were rabidly right-wing; had
leanings towards totalitarianism; made lurid appeals to the badly educated
working classes and wanted to militarise youth. Europe was, therefore, hardly
very liberal prior to 1914. There existed a climate of distrust and fear arising
both from ignorance and prejudice. The British distrusted the Germans and
vice versa; the French had an inbuilt chauvinism against all foreigners, but
especially the “barbaric Hun”, etc.
When it came to war in 1914, even so–called internationalists and socialists
eagerly donned a rifle and pack and acquiesced in the slaughter of men
whose only real difference was that they happened to be born elsewhere.
10
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Monarchs & Presidents – Mix and Match Exercise
Kaiser Wilhelm II
Elected PM in January of1912, and began to pursue a hard-line antiGerman policy, noted for restoring close ties with France's Russian
ally. He was elected President of the Republic in1913, and attempted
to make that office into a site of power for the first time since the
1870s. He generally managed to continue to dominate foreign policy,
in particular, and his anti-German sentiments were blamed by some
for the outbreak of WWI. He was certainly in Russia in July 1914
promising the Tsar France’s support in any war with Germany. He
was later (1923) responsible for other anti-german actions like the
invasion of the Ruhr.
Franz Josef II
Trained as sailor, the king was a rather narrow-minded and
conservative individual, who at a dinner-table once declared, on
finding an avocado on his plate: “What the hell is this?” Unlike the
other emperors and kings of the major powers he was a constitutional
monarch who was largely required to rubber-stamp the actions of
parliament. However, this does not mean he can be totally absolved
of blame for WWI, which he fully supported even changing the family
name from the Germanic Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
Nicholas II
The Habsburg emperor had been born in 1830 and came to the
throne in 1848. He was therefore an old and rather reactionary figure
by 1914. Determined to hang onto to his disparate empire and to
preserve his Balkans possessions from an encroaching Serbia (such
as Bosnia, which was the only territory he had added). He had
enormous power and influence, but had experienced great tragedy in
his life. His son and heir had committed suicide; his wife had been
assassinated and his nephew (to whom he wasn’t close) had been
shot at Sarajevo.
George V
Son of an English mother and the previous emperor, he had been
born with a withered left arm. An unstable and ambitious
megalomaniac he had rejected his mother’s liberal ideas. A militarist
and imperialist he was determined to increase Germany’s power and
influence. He was also obsessed with naval power, possibly because
he wanted to emulate GB, a nation he had a complex love-hate
relationship with. More than anyone, he has to bear a lot of
responsibility for the events of 1914.
Raymond Poincare
Reactionary tsar who ignored all advice and warnings and took his
empire into war in 1914, ostensibly in support of Serbia against
Austro-Hungary. Some historians argue Russia’s mobilisation plans
meant that once Russia’s huge army began to be called up there was
no way of reversing the situation and that mobilisation in effect meant
war had been declared.
11
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Answers
Kaiser Wilhelm II
Franz Josef II
Nicholas II
George V
Raymond Poincare
12
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
C. The Role of Imperialism & Territorial Ambition
This is how the major powers came into actual conflict.
Once again we see a definite bias in the evidence towards German
aggression and ambition as the most prevalent factor in the equation.
Germany in fact had many expansionist-minded individuals both in the military
and in its civil govt. As we have seen, two of the most prominent were the
Kaiser himself and General von Bernhardi. Others included the von Moltkes
and Admiral von Tirpitz, who wanted to achieve world-power status and
Germany’s rightful “place in the sun”, through the creation of a High Seas
Fleet.
Many high-ranking Germans wanted their country to have colonies, given the
prestige and status attached to the possession of an empire. As a relatively
new nation though, only unified by Bismarck in 1871, Germany had arrived
late to the carve-up of the global pie. The stark reality of Germany’s
possessions was galling. ‘Imperial Germany’ had a few scattered
possessions in Africa and a collection of meagre islands in the Pacific. Her
subjects totalled 12m; GB had 400m in its ‘care’. Germany, in its mind at
least, had a right to look enviously upon its neighbours’ possessions.
Germany’s colonialism was also a useful political tool, a way of combating the
public’s anglophilia by inducing jealousy and mistrust of GB. Was not the
selfish and greedy England denying the Fatherland its rightful ‘place in the
sun’?
As well as the military, the German public and its civil govt. were eager for
overseas possessions. In 1893, the Pan-German League came into being to
promote expansion and imperialism. It was followed, five years later, by the
German Navy League.
Certainly, the German chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, a personal appointee of
the Kaiser’s, had great territorial ambitions after (and presumably before) the
War had broken out. Ideas of lebensraum and expansion to the East were not
unique to Hitler or even novel in 1914.
Bethmann-Hollweg’s writings express considerable bellicosity: France was to
be totally humiliated and finished as a rival; Belgium was to become a vassal
state; Luxembourg would be annexed and neutral Holland “brought into a
closer relationship” with the Reich. Germany’s ambitions in Eastern Europe
(Ukraine) and Africa were clearly outlined.
To Henig, Germany would exploit the Balkans crises for instance, to change
the status quo in its favour.
However, there are those, like H.W. Koch, who believe German expansion
was due to fear of encirclement and isolation. But Germany’s defensive acts
could always be construed as aggressive by her neighbours, of course.
Certainly, Germany was to support Austria in July 1914 knowing this might
well trigger a major war. It would, therefore, be stretching credulity to regard
Germany as an innocent amongst wolves.
13
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
To Koch, Ferguson et al though, GB was a far from blameless country and
indeed this seems one of Koch’s more reasonable and plausible arguments.
GB had a massive empire and was determined to hold onto it by all means.
GB was far less concerned with Europe, as A.J.P. Taylor points out, and was
in fact isolationist with regard to the continent. The German High Seas Fleet,
was so feared simply because it threatened Britain and her empire directly.
Up until its construction, Germany had been seen as a natural ally against
Britain’s greater imperial rivals: France and Russia.
In 1898, at Fashoda in the disputed Sudan, GB and France had almost come
into direct military conflict. In Russia’s war with Japan of 1904-5, GB had
overtly supported the latter emerging power. It was not until as late as 1904
and 1907 that agreements with France (the ‘entente cordiale’) and Russia
respectively (the so-called Triple Ententes) had come into being. Even then,
these agreements were opportunistic, being motivated by a mutual fear of an
increasingly ambitious Germany.
GB’s main aim therefore, can be fairly seen as the maintenance of the status
quo that so suited her – and the exclusion of the upstart, parvenu Germans.
Koch has even gone as far to state that to GB: “War in Europe was preferable
to imperial insecurity, which might well lead to the collapse of the Empire
altogether”. The invasion of neutral Belgium in 1914 was thus the ideal
excuse for British intervention. “Poor little Belgium”, which had committed
such hideous imperialist atrocities in the Congo, and which Ferguson
maintains, given its strategic value, the British would have invaded
themselves, if the Germans had not!
It is therefore very difficult and undesirable to place the total blame of
imperialist ambition entirely on German shoulders, especially as France,
Austria, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Japan and even the USA, had definite
territorial and imperialist desires and ambitions themselves.
Discussion Point
What were the USA’s ambitions and where were they manifested?
Germany however was committing the cardinal sin of rocking the proverbial
boat. Making the world dangerously unstable, even if ultimately all it was
doing was trying to achieve what the other powers had already done: acquire
an empire. This fear of German intrusion made unlikely allies out of imperial
rivals like GB, France, Russia and Japan. The presence of their empires,
however, did much to make the world the unstable place it was in 1914. It
can, therefore, be no surprise or coincidence that the war was eventually
triggered by a territorial, imperialist dispute in the Balkans.
Discussion Point
The USA and Japan were allies in WWI, but Germany, as revealed in the
infamous Zimmermann telegram, tried to prise them apart. Why do you think
Germany chose to target Japan as a potential ally and offered Mexico its old
territories back?
14
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Source Vocabulary and Types of Evidence
Term
Definition
Motive
A. Source from the time of the events it describes
Provenance
B. Benefit (or hindrance) of knowing what happened
Bias
C. When a source over-states an issue
Facts
D. When someone is pretending not to know something
Opinion
E. A reason why the person said or did something
Opinionated
F. An unbalanced or unreliable source which cannot be trusted
Unreliable
G. Biased source designed to promote a particular point of view
Exaggerated
H. The origins of a source – who or where is it from?
Uses
I. Material which we know to be accurate or true
Primary
J. Evidence produced after the time of the events it describes
Secondary
K. A person who saw the events they describe
Hindsight
L. All sources have value for the historian
Disingenuous
M. The personal views of a source
Propaganda
N. A synonym for a biased source
Eyewitness
O. Using one source to compare the veracity of another
Corroboration
P. A person or source which is full of opinions
Type of
Source
Memoirs
Letters
Newspapers
Memos
Diaries
Treaties
Photos
Film
Posters
Conversations
Minutes
Telegrams
Official Docs.
Diplomatic
Despatches
Magazines
Official
Statements
Speeches
Definition
A. Full of opinion, propaganda and often heavily biased
B. Personal recollections of events written later and which may
be full of self-justification
C. Records of meetings often taken by a secretary. Many have
been edited or have not recorded events accurately
D. Agreements between nations. Peace agreements often
written by the victors and so are unreliable evidence
E. If correspondence between individuals they tend to be
indicative of private thoughts and motives
F. Daily record of events. Some are honest accounts, others
meant for future publication.
G. Verbal communication has not necessarily been accurately
recorded nor is it necessarily honest in its opinions
H. Notes passed between individuals or departments, sometimes
trustworthy, but sometimes not
I. Often produced by biased directors
J. Can be easily altered or cropped and used for propaganda
purposes
K. The ‘party-line’ adopted by the government - what it wants
believed
L. Verbal communication to a mass audience meant to persuade
and influence, and rarely reliable
M. Forms of conveying mass propaganda messages
N. Publications meant to inform and entertain, and provide
knowledge to its readership
O. Communiqués between government embassies and
consulates meant only to be viewed by the addressee
P. The fastest way of communicating a message in the 19 th and
early 20th centuries
Q. Formal communiqués by governments. Can be disingenuous.
15
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Source Vocabulary and Types of Evidence
Term
Motive
Provenance
Bias
Facts
Opinion
Opinionated
Unreliable
Exaggerated
Uses
Primary
Secondary
Hindsight
Disingenuous
Propaganda
Eyewitness
Corroboration
Definition
Type of Source
Memoirs
Definition
Letters
Newspapers
Memos
Diaries
Treaties
Photos
Film
Posters
Conversations
Minutes
Telegrams
Official Docs.
Diplomatic
Despatches
Magazines
Official
Statements
Speeches
16
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
D. The Role of Economic Rivalry
The major powers were economic, as well as imperial rivals. Contemporary
historians of the War (like Niall Ferguson), increasingly stress the role of trade
and commercial rivalries.
Wars are often the result of economic factors, of clashes over valuable
‘spheres of influence’. It is possible for instance to say that the direct and
indirect economic causes of WWII were paramount, especially in the Far East.
To Lenin and other Marxists WWI was triggered by greed, a view echoed by
Woodrow Wilson (who also blamed the evils of secret diplomacy).
Discussion Point
What other wars were possibly brought about through greed?
In the pre-war period, Germany and GB were economic as much as military
and naval rivals. The situation in this sense was, in fact, highly complex.
Germany was a threat to Britain’s exports markets, given her economic
growth and imperial ambitions. But Germany was also GB’s largest customer.
Kennedy (1980) certainly emphasises the economic rivalry between the two
countries as a cause for their mutual antagonism. This was made worse by
the fact that GB, though still an economic powerhouse, was in decline and
Germany was in the ascendant: the strongest, most dynamic economy in
Europe.
In Russia, according to Hugh Seton-Watson, industrialisation and economic
growth was seen by the govt. as a means of to military and imperial
greatness. Germany certainly feared Russian growth and Russia’s
modernisation of its army and the establishment of an extensive rail network,
may have been a stimulus to the German military’s desire for an early,
‘preventative war’.
The USA probably entered the War, in April 1917, when unrestricted U-boat
activity seriously threatened its vital Atlantic, economic arteries.
Discussion Point
Why do you think Belgium had such commercial importance to GB?
However to Henig economic disputes between the Great Powers like the
financing of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway and over Portuguese colonies had
largely been solved by 1914. She downplays the role of economic rivalries
saying most had been solved by 1914. Instead she says: “Far more of a
threat to international stability was posed by the older and more traditional
imperial rivalries, involving struggles for power in areas regarded as
strategically and militarily important”.
17
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
E. The Role of Internal Problems
Economic and territorial/imperial rivalries were made worse by the internal
problems of the major powers.
Since ancient times, internal difficulties have frequently been solved by
foreign wars or foreign expansion. Modern analogies abound with foreign
successes trumpeted to drown the silence of domestic failure. The internal
problems of the pre-War states, is increasingly viewed as a crucial factor in
their decision to go to war.
Can you think of more contemporary examples of war playing a diverting role?
Germany, the economic and military giant, had socio-economic feet of clay.
Germany’s economic growth was not matched by a political and social
maturity. It had innate and inherent political weaknesses. K.D. Bracher calls
it a “pseudo-constitutional, semi-absolute, feudal, military and bureaucratic
state”. Thomas Mann (author of ‘Death in Venice’) parodied the ‘ideal’
German as “General Dr. von Staat”.
Hans-Ulrich Wehler also stresses internal problems within a faltering German
state, as a driving force.
The Kaiser detested democrats, liberals and especially socialists and even
contemplated having all the latter shot on the outbreak of war.
The fall of the architect of the German state, Otto von Bismarck, in 1890, had
only made matters worse and the govt. even less stable. In Brachers’ words,
there “emerged a growing tendency to neutralise the problem by diverting the
domestic pressures of social emancipation towards an imperialist expansion”.
Society would become more conservative, it was argued, through war. The
Crown Prince, as early as 1911 was agreed that: “the confused and hopeless
domestic situation would improve at a stroke, if all the people of our country
were called upon to take up arms”.
It was an argument many others understood only too well.
In GB, internal problems were also manifold and are increasingly studied,
though controversial: the Left and Right squabbling over their historiographical
importance. GB in 1914, certainly had many looming or actual crises to deal
with and a war would be a useful diversion.
In Ireland, civil war was very near to breaking out over the prospect of ‘Home
Rule’. The Protestant Ulstermen had accumulated a large stockpile of arms
and ammo. and were prepared to fight. The Curragh Mutiny had shown that
the British army was sympathetic to the Protestants and even the Tory party,
under Bonar-Law, were prepared to condone violent opposition to the Home
Rule Bill.
18
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
In the rest of Britain, the unions were becoming increasingly powerful and the
big three of miners, dockers and railwaymen, planned a major strike for
September 1914.
Britain was beginning to decline economically and was a far from contented
country. 0.4% of the population owned a massive 65% of its wealth. In
contrast, only 1/3 of recruits in 1916 were fully fit for service, due to the
ravages caused by industrial, slum conditions. Bantam battalions even had to
be formed during the war to make use of the massive no. of men who were
below the required height (c. 1.60m).
The unwritten, British constitution was under considerable strain: Britain was
not a full democracy (some had two votes, others none) and suffragette
militancy was at its height.
The War conveniently postponed these crises, something, which was perhaps
not entirely coincidental.
George Dangerfield in his book: ‘The Strange Death of Liberal England’,
believed firmly, that political collapse was imminent in 1914. It is a view
supported, though for different reasons by the right-wing historian, Paul
Johnson, who boldly claims that: “our parliamentary democracy itself was
perhaps saved in the mud of Flanders”.
But was it a democracy worth the lives of nearly a million British and Empire
troops?
The Mother of Parliaments - Westminister
19
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE SHORT-TERM CAUSES
We have examined the long-term, ultimate causes of WWI. Now we need to
look at the short-term crises and ‘trigger’ factors, which culminated in the
Sarajevo incident (itself, I would argue, a result of the instability in pre-War
Europe, rather than its cause).
What had made Europe by 1914 as unstable, volatile place? The long-term
factors included militarism, nationalism, etc. These were reflected in the
events of the few years prior to 1914, which helped to bring the European
powers into direct conflict.
The First Moroccan Crisis 1905
The Kingdom of Morocco, in North Africa, was an archaic, weak state. It was
also replete with mineral deposits like iron. It was, therefore, ripe pickings for
the scavenging great powers in its vicinity.
The French were the most ambitious with regard to this particular part of
Africa, and wanted to take effective control over the kingdom. GB and Italy
agreed to a French mandate; the former due to France’s willingness to
reciprocate by relinquishing claims in Egypt. Spain was also given territorial
concessions for not opposing French designs.
Discussion Point
What two towns does Spain still have in Morocco?
Once again the European powers were colluding to divide up the global cake
into tasty pieces. However, the Germans saw the opportunity to split the
British and French by showing that despite the agreement of 1904 between
them, the British could not be trusted to aid their Gallic allies.
The Moroccans, understandably, opposed French ambitions on their country.
They called for German support. The Kaiser landed in Tangier and rode
through the streets to the German legation, on a white horse. The German
military were arguably keen to provoke a war against France while her ally
Russia was still weak. The German civil authorities, however, believed they
could win diplomatically and achieve a joint, German-French mandate.
The results of the crisis included the incensing of French public opinion
against Germany; the strengthening of the Anglo-French entente (not
weakening as Germany had wished); and Germany having to recognise the
primacy of French interests in Morocco. German actions had made GB more
committed to the idea of involvement in any possible land conflict on the
continent.
20
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Second Moroccan Crisis 1911
(Known also as the ‘Agadir Crisis’, after the Moroccan port where it took
place).
This crisis has been seen as an illustration of the evils of secret diplomacy,
according to E.D. Morel and Ramsey-MacDonald. W.N. Medlicott disputes
this view, saying instead that secret diplomacy solved a crisis begun by open,
diplomatic posturing.
France wanted greater control over Morocco, Germany wanted compensation
in terms of commercial and industrial access, and was prepared to try and
achieve it using gunboat diplomacy. In the end, she backed down from the
prospect of war with France and GB.
The crisis strengthened the entente and confirmed British views of Germany
as lusting for European hegemony; Germany’s distrust of GB was also
deepened. Medlicott sums up the significance of the crisis succinctly: “The
Agadir affair was a symptom, a warning light, but it did not create the basic
animosities”.
A similar conclusion could be drawn on the other crises.
The Bosnia-Herzogovina Annexation Crisis, 1908
The machinations between the great powers are best seen in the area of the
Balkans. The annexation crisis is an excellent example of the territorial and
imperial ambitions of the powers and the ulterior nature of their professed
motives.
Stages in the crisis:
 Austro-Hungary and Russia come to a secret agreement over B-H., an
area ‘de facto’, but not ‘de jure’ part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Austria wants to annexe to formally annexe it and agrees to give
Russia territorial concessions for allowing her to do so, unopposed;
 Austria, however, reneges on the deal, after the annexation has taken
place;
 Russia fumes; the Serbs (who have their own ambitions in the area)
object - but the Germans are prepared to support Austria knowing the
consequences of doing so might be to unleash a major war;
 Russia however, is not yet in a position to support Serbia; Serbia is
therefore forced to back down;
 Austria then buys off Turkey (nominal ruler of B-H);
Results? Austria wins a seeming, but ultimately misleading, victory; the South
Slav question remains unanswered; Russia has been humiliated and will seek
revenge, as will Serbia.
Europe is dividing into the sides that fought WWI.
21
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Balkans Wars 1912/13
The Balkans was the most unstable area in Europe. An arena of Pan-Slavic
ambitions and continental rivalries, where, in the words of J.M. Roberts, “two
great states (Austria and Russia) sought power and influence in an area
abandoned to feeble and bickering small states, by the Turkish retreat”.
Henig puts it perfectly: the Balkans Wars by defeating and driving out the
centuries old Ottoman Turkish Empire removed the shock-absorber or buffer.
Now Russia and Austro-Hungary could directly rub up against each other –
with fatal results.
The presence of Serbia, which itself had territorial ambitions and in particular
a desire for seaport and which Austria, by any means, wished to deny her,
only complicated and inflamed matters.
The various countries in the area had complicated relationships with each
other. The Turks had once controlled the Balkans, but were now opposed by
Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks.
The Greeks and Bulgarians distrusted each other, partly on religious grounds
and partly because of their conflicting, territorial ambitions.
Serbia cast envious eyes upon the tiny kingdom of Montenegro’s 28 mile
coastline. Serbs and Bulgars detested each other, a feud dating back to the
Middle Ages; while Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece all coveted Macedonia, the
rich province still in the Turkish empire.
In 1912, Serbia and Bulgaria helped by the Russians (who wanted to be seen
assisting their fellow Slavs and who saw the prospect of gaining an ice-free
port) formed an alliance agreeing to divide up Macedonia between them.
Other alliances led to a fragile, Balkan league in the same year.
The common enemy, the Turkish or Ottoman Empire was weak with a no. of
internal problems: the ambitious Italy was attacking her possessions in Tripoli;
the Albanians and Arabs of the Yemen were in revolt. Politically, and
religiously, Turkey itself was also in turmoil.
In 1912, the Balkans allies declared war on their common enemy: the Turkish
empire.
The Turks were defeated in separate campaigns by the Serbs and Bulgars.
The Greek navy too did well and the main Greek army reached the vital port
of Salonika, before their Bulgar rivals.
The First Balkans War, ended officially in May 1913. The land, which Turkey
had lost, was to be squabbled over by the victorious powers, except for
Albania, which became an independent country in its own right, in 1913.
The Greeks and the Serbs then fell out with their traditional enemy and rival
Bulgaria. This led to the Second Balkan War, with the Romanians and Turks
joining in the attacks on Bulgaria.
22
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The resulting treaty and defeat of Bulgaria, saw territorial and economic gains
for the victorious–their real reasons for going to war.
Bulgaria, under its German-born Tsar, Ferdinand, began to seek revenge and
looked to and found an ally in Austria-Hungary, Serbia’s old enemy.
Meanwhile, Greek and Serbian territorial ambitions remained unabated.
Turkey feeling weak and vulnerable needed a strong ally. She found one in a
Germany only too willing to gain influence in a disintegrating empire in eastern
Europe and Asia.
Partly because of the conflicts in the Balkans, but also because of the
instability Germany was provoking, many politicians and diplomats from 1912,
claims Henig, believed a major war now to be inevitable.
Italian Cartoon, 1915
23
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Sarajevo Assassination, 28th June 1914
On 28th June, 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a fanatical Bosnia-Serb, assassinated the
heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, in the
cosmopolitan city of Sarajevo.
Franz Ferdinand was on a day of many ironies, no war monger. A spikey and
sinister individual, he was also a relative moderate (prepared to contemplate
granting political participation to his future Slav subjects) and a devoted and
loving family man.
Princip, a young 17 year old zealot, was involved with the Serbia nationalist
group, the Black Hand gang. He was fortunate in a number of ways that his
plan succeeded. The Archduke had survived an attack earlier that day by one
of Princip’s confederates, but had still refused to cancel his schedule. The
Archduke’s driver took a wrong-turn drawing up to Princip who was on the
verge of going home. Lastly, Franz Ferdinand was wearing a revolutionary
new bullet proof vest. Unfortunately for him (and the rest of the world) Princip
shot him in the throat. Poor old Sophie also died. Princip had fired only two
shots. He was too young to hang, but died in prison of TB aged 19.
Austria knew who had ordered the killing and why the assassination had taken
place.
She duly provoked war with Serbia (Williamson emphasises Austria’s
determination to exact revenge on Serbia), after being given total support by
the Kaiser (the so-called ‘blank cheque’), as an excuse to curtail Serbia
expansion and attacks on the old Habsburg empire. Henig emphasises that it
was this ‘blank cheque’ (5-6th July) that really precipitated conflict.
Russia, Serbia’s ally and protector, the ostensible champion of the Slavic
cause (though only too willing to sell it out when propitious to do so, as we
saw in 1908) rallied this time to the Serb’s side, mobilising her massive army
in their support. Germany supported, Austria, arguably, fully knowing the
consequences of doing so.
Why was Austro-Hungary so eager to provoke war with Serbia?
Basically, because the Serbs with their own territorial ambitions and concerns
to champion the rights of other Slavs within the Austro-Hungarian empire,
were a destabilising threat to the status quo. Austria-Hungary wanted also to
deny Serbia access to a port and the economic possibilities for growth this
would present.
Russia supported Serbia as a means of gaining an ice-free port on the
Adriatic; it also looked good in a country beset by so many internal problems,
to be seen to be supporting fellow Slavs.
Again, therefore we see the selfish motives of the major (and upstart) powers
taking control and enflaming an already dangerous situation which, combined
with other long-term factors, produced the first ever truly global conflict in
human history.
24
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
The Limitations of the Schlieffen Plan, 1914
The Germans had basically only one strategy, once war had been declared.
The Schlieffen Plan, designed as a way of achieving a quick victory against
the French, it would then enable the Germans to turn east and face the more
slowly mobilising, but huge Russian army.
The Plan however, like many plans, had one basic flaw: besides being
inflexible, it would involve the invasion of neutral Belgium, a country protected
by Britain since 1839 (albeit for its own commercial and strategic reasons).
Therefore, once Germany had attacked a country vital to Britain’s interests,
never mind France, Germany would find itself at war with the British as well
and so embroiled in a full scale European conflict –something the
megalomaniac Kaiser must have known.
The British used ‘little Belgium’ (in reality, the vicious, sadistic Congo colonial
power) as the excuse they needed to try and curtail the threat to the balance
of power, their commercial interests – and their precious empire, the upstart
Germans posed.
COUNTERFACTUAL HISTORY – THE WHAT IF’S?
HYPOTHESIS
No Kaiser, no
WWI?
No invasion of
Belgium, no GB?
No Sarajevo, no
WWI?
No naval race, no
British
involvement?
No alliance
system, no WWI?
YES
NO
PROBABLY
POSSIBLY
What if the Archduke had had a competent driver?
25
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
WORDSEARCH ON THE CAUSES OF WORLD WAR ONE
B
K
A
I
S
E
R
E
E
P
B
I
S
A
X
W
S
H
B
J
T
F
O
L
C
A
L
R
E
T
S
W
Q
A
S
W
A
E
S
K
P
C
T
O
T
A
N
G
A
C
M
A
A
U
R
H
P
Y
L
G
I
L
K
O
R
N
W
E
I
D
A
L
I
B
G
H
R
A
L
F
S
K
N
U
R
E
R
E
A
O
J
E
D
N
A
L
C
K
R
A
C
N
C
E
A
G
A
D
I
R
I
E
L
I
D
C
V
G
S
E
R
B
I
A
P
T
R
H
O
O
U
A
I
R
T
S
U
A
A
A
L
M
D
E
T
U
R
K
E
Y
O
R
S
Z
G
T
1. In 1905, this country saw the Germans trying to test the alliance of GB
and France__________________
2. This port,__________, saw the German ___________riding through it
on a white horse to emphasise his support for its Sultan
3. The problems created were partly solved at the conference of ______
4. However, in 1911, the situation got worse during the _________crisis,
which saw war nearly break out between GB and Germany, especially
as Germany seemed to be threatening the British naval base
at________
5. The next major area of confrontation in Europe was in the Balkans.
The ____________was determined to take ______ from _________
6. The major powers supported this action as they also had ambitions in
the area. ___________wanted to crush ___________which was
threatening its empire
7. Russia was looking for an ____free port
8. When a member of the terrorist group, the_____________, called
Gavrilo ________ assassinated an Austrian __________and heir to the
throne in___________, Austria had an excuse to attack Serbia.
Germany would back up its ally, Russia its.
World War One had broken out.
26
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASONS FOR WWI
Most
Significant
The Assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand
in Sarajevo in 1914
Nations were economic rivals and
commercial concerns were
becoming of increasing importance
in determining foreign policy
Austro-Hungary was
determined to crush
Serb ambitions in the
Balkans, but could only
do so with Germany’s
‘blank cheque’
No nation wanted war, but
stumbled into it as a result of
misunderstanding, mobilisation
running out of control, etc.
All nations at the
time were highly
xenophobic,
nationalist,
militaristic and
intolerant
France, Russia and GB were
ambitious imperialists intent on
restricting German expansion
and stopping Germany ‘rocking
the boat’
Germany was a
militaristic state whose
late arrival on the
European scene had
fatally upset the
balance of power
Germany had enormous
internal problems and
needed a distracting war
to unite the nation
The Kaiser was a volatile, racist, megalomaniac and
militarist intent on increasing the size of the German
Empire and guaranteeing Germany hegemony in Europe
Less
Significance
27
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR
The consequences of WWI ranged from the trivial to the enormous, ultimately
leading to the Russian Revolution, WWII and even the Cold War.
Short-Term/Direct Effects

MEDICAL DEVELOPMENTS:
The First World War saw enormous strides made in terms of medical
techniques that were to be some of the few humanitarian benefits of
the war.
Trains were used for the first time to evacuate casualties; surgical
techniques, especially to the face and head, improved enormously, as
did reconstructive surgery. Psychiatry became respectable branch of
medicine, after it dealt with so many shell-shock cases. Blood and
plasma transfusions saved many lives, and disease was no longer the
chief killer of soldiers, as it had been in the American Civil War (186165) and the Boer War (1899-1901).

WEAPONRY:
The War saw a no. of developments. Tanks were used for the first time
in 1916; submarines proved their strategic worth in attempts to starve
out an enemy; poison gas was released by both sides, and aeroplanes
and airships were used in the first aerial bombardments of civilian
targets. The bayonet and sword only accounted for a tiny no. of
casualties. The nature of warfare had changed forever.
The benefits and horrors of industrial-era warfare were soon felt, as the
casualty lists were sickeningly long and seemed to be never-ending.
The quality British press, which initially printed the names of all the
dead, later could only find room for officers.
Discussion Point
What other medical and weapons developments have come about
through wars?

IMPERIAL & TERRITORIAL CHANGES:
Though the War saw many changes in terms of who controlled
countries or provinces, there was little fundamental change in the
principles of imperialism, which were still firmly upheld. In that sense,
little was learnt from the war. Instead a form of musical chairs took
place with Germany being deprived not only of its own overseas
colonies, but a large slice of its home territory (13.5%).
Through the Versailles terms, Germany lost:
-
all its possessions in Africa, Asia and the Pacific; significantly they did
not become independent, but were re-distributed amongst the allied
28
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
-
victors to: Britain, France, Japan, the USA, South Africa and New
Zealand; (the Turks also witnessed the disassembling of their empire;
something that had been decided upon during the War by the cynical
1916 Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement);
Alsace-Lorraine to France;
Certain rich industrial areas (Malmedy, Eupen) to Belgium;
West Prussia and Posen to Poland;
Hultschin to Czechoslovakia;
Danzig became a free port;
The Rhineland was de-militarised and occupied;
Austria-Hungary was split up with huge chunks going to new countries
like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia (including the Sudetenland);
Anschluss between Germany and Austria was forbidden;
Hiden has said that more than anything else, these territorial losses
angered the German people and helped to lead to the rise of Hitler and
ultimately WWII.

GROWTH OF NATIONALISM & EXTREMISM:
The war did not mean Europe was a more tolerant place. Instead, the
devastation of economies (Germany, Austria, etc); post-War slumps
(Spain, etc) and unrealised territorial ambitions (Italy’s claims on Fiume
and Dalmatia, etc) led to the growth of both extreme right and left-wing
groups.
In Germany, starvation and the de-mobilisation of millions of veterans
led to starvation, attempted putsches and revolution, including wide
scale political assassination and near-anarchy.
Communists, radical socialists and ultra-nationalists fought for control
in the streets. In Italy, the post-War slump and the disappointments of
Paris, led to the rise of Mussolini and fascism, which was in power by
1922.
The War itself, of course, had directly led to the foundation of the
world’s first communist state, Bolshevik Russia, in 1917. This was to
have enormous implications, which have persisted to the present day.
Even in relatively stable countries like GB, disillusionment with the War
had encouraged (along with the Great Depression) veterans to join the
communist or Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists (BUF).
Discussion Point
How does the Russian revolution still affect the modern world?

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES:
The War had been good for countries like neutral Spain, which had
provided food, uniforms and guns to both sides. However, the moment
the war ended demand ceased and Spain experienced a slump. This
29
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
was to have important socio-political consequences for an essentially
poor country, and ultimately helped to lead to the Spanish civil war of
1936-39.
Even countries like France and GB that had won the War lost out
economically, and were virtually ruined by the costs of the fighting (£5.5
million per diem for GB alone). Britain’s gold reserves were effectively
wiped out and she was never again to be the great power she had
been pre-1914.
France had been so damaged by the German occupation of her
industrial regions that she desperately needed the compensation
demanded at Versailles. So much so, that France again risked war in
1923 by occupying the Ruhr.

THE POSITIVES?:
The War did have some promising outcomes. The creation of the
League of Nations being the paramount one, and though it was
fundamentally flawed from the beginning, it did at least have noble
intentions.
‘Collective security’, disarmament and the desire not to resort to force,
were all commendable ideas, and laid the foundations for the later and
much more effective UNO. Unfortunately, lack of an army to enforce its
ideals; the absence of Germany and Russia and especially the USA,
almost doomed it from the start.
The British PM, David Lloyd George, had famously declared GB would
be “a land fit for heroes” to return to. However, his idealistic intentions
were never matched by deeds and GB continued to be a country of
rigid class divisions and slum dwellings.
However, GB was not alone in its continued conservatism and the
people of Europe soon realised that the War had not been fought for
any high ideals at all. They had been lied to.
30
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Long-Term/In-Direct Effects
WWI also saw enormous impact decades afterwards.

APPEASEMENT:
One of the most poignant results of the War, in lots of ways, was
appeasement. Many politicians on the allied side were determined that
never again would Europe be embroiled in a bloodbath on the scale of
1914-1918. However, to this extent men like Chamberlain of GB and
Daladier of France, were prepared to acquiesce to Hitler’s demands in
the 1930s. In this way, their actions helped to lead to another war in
1939.

RISE OF THE USA:
The United Sates really came to prominence during WWI. American
economic strength, as much as military prowess, helped the allies to
win and Germany to realise she could never triumph. After the War,
US president, Woodrow Wilson, was prominent at Versailles
negotiations and urged on France and GB restraint when it came to
Germany. He was also the primary instigator of the League of Nations,
and urged his nation to join, but was defeated by the isolationist views
of his countrymen. Isolationism was a short-sighted policy that was
also to help bring the world to future conflict in 1939.

END OF AN ERA:
The end of the War also saw a number of dynasties that had helped to
cause the War in the first place by their autocratic and imperialist
minded policies.
The Hohenzollerns of Germany were finished. The Kaiser was allowed
to skulk away to the Netherlands where he died in 1941.
The centuries-old Habsburg dynasty in Austria also came to the end
with the forced abdication of the last emperor, Franz Josef having died
in 1916. Ironically the last Habsburg, Otto, is ironically perhaps a
staunch democrat in the European parliament – and is still threatened
by the Serbs!
The 300 year rule of the autocratic Romanovs came to a particularly
abrupt, and in their case, bloody end. And though there is perhaps
some justice in this, his death also helped to lead to evils of Sovietstyle communism and ultimately the Cold War.
31
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EFFECTS OF WWI
Most
Significant
Less
Significance
Discussion Point & Exercise
Which, do you think, was the most important effect of the
First World War?
Place nine consequences in order of relative importance on a
pyramid and present your views to the rest of the class.
32
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
SECTION A, Paper 1: The Origins of World War I, 1870–1914
THE BELGIAN CRISIS, 1914
Read the sources, and then answer the question.
Source A
The French Ambassador said, ‘No incursion of French troops into Belgium will take
place, even if German forces are massed upon the frontiers of your country. France
does not wish to incur the responsibility, so far as Belgium is concerned, of taking the
first hostile act. Instructions in this sense will be given to the French authorities.’ I
thanked him for his message, and said that we always had the greatest confidence
that other countries would keep their promises towards us. We have also every
reason to believe that the attitude of the German Government will be the same as
that of the Government of France. Certain newspapers have maintained that in the
case of a Franco-German war Belgian neutrality would be violated by Germany. We
have suggested that an official declaration in the German Parliament that Belgian
neutrality would be respected would calm public opinion and dispel the mistrust
which was so regrettable from the point of view of the relations between the two
countries. Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, the Chancellor of Germany, has replied that
he had fully appreciated the feelings which had inspired our concerns. He declared
that Germany had no intention of violating Belgian neutrality, but he considered that
in making a public declaration Germany would weaken her military position in regard
to France, who, secured on the northern side, would concentrate all her energies on
her eastern frontier.
M. Davignon, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Belgian Ambassadors at
Berlin, London, and Paris, 31 July 1914.
Source B
Reliable information has been received by the German Government that French
forces intend to march north. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of
France to march through Belgian territory against Germany. The German
Government fears that Belgium, in spite of the utmost goodwill, will be unable,
without assistance, to repel such a considerable French invasion, and therefore
cannot provide an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential for
the self-defence of Germany that she should take steps against any such hostile
attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium
were to regard it as an act of hostility if Germany’s opponents forced Germany, for its
own protection, to enter Belgian territory.
Note, marked ‘Very Confidential’, from von Below Saleske, the German Ambassador
to Belgium, to Davignon, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2 August 1914.
33
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Source C
The German press has been attempting to persuade the public that if Germany
herself had not violated Belgian neutrality, France or Great Britain would have done
so. It has said that French and British troops marched into Belgium before the
outbreak of war. We have received from the Belgian Minister of War an official
statement which denies absolutely these allegations. It declares, on the one hand,
‘Before 3 August not a single French soldier had set foot on Belgian territory’, and
again, ‘It is untrue that on 4 August there was a single English soldier in Belgium.’ It
adds, ‘For long past Great Britain knew that the Belgian army would oppose by force
a “preventive” landing of British troops in Belgium.’
Official statement of the British Government, reported in the British newspaper ‘The
Times’, 30 September 1914.
Source D
It is quite untrue that the British Government had ever arranged with Belgium to
trespass on her country in case of war, or that Belgium had agreed to this. Whatever
military discussions have taken place before this war have been limited entirely to the
suggestion of what could be done to defend France if Germany attacked her through
Belgium. The Germans have stated that we contemplated sending troops to Belgium.
We had never committed ourselves at all to the sending of troops to the Continent,
and we had never contemplated the possibility of sending troops to Belgium to attack
Germany. No British soldiers and no British stores were landed on the Continent till
after Germany had invaded Belgium, and Belgium had appealed to France and
Britain for assistance. The idea of violating the neutrality of Belgium was never
discussed or contemplated by the British Government.
Viscount Haldane, Lord Chancellor, reporting the views of the British government,
14 November 1914.
34
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
Source E
The cause of the war was the invasion of Belgium. We declared war because we
were bound by treaty to declare war. We have been pledged to protect the integrity of
Belgium since the kingdom of Belgium existed. If the Germans had not broken the
guarantees they shared with us to respect the neutrality of little Belgium we should
certainly not be at war at the present time. We were pledged to France simply to
protect her from a naval attack by sea, but the Germans had already given us an
undertaking not to make such an attack. It was our Belgian treaty that pushed us into
the war. No Power in the world would have respected our Flag or accepted our
national word again if we had not fought.
H.G. Wells, the British writer in the book ‘The War That Will End War’, 1914.
Now answer the following question.
‘Belgium’s insistence on maintaining its neutrality brought about Germany’s invasion.’
Use Sources A-E to show how far the evidence confirms this statement.
35
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
APPENDIX 1
PAST IB QUESTIONS ON WWI

“Wars may be started by a single incident. They are never
caused by such an incident”. With reference to any ONE 20th
century war show how far you agree with this statement. [May
1990]

How valid is it to claim that Europe “stumbled into” a world war
in 1914? [May 1992]

“By definition, the immediate causes of war pose a greater
threat to peace and are, therefore, more important than the long
term or basic causes”. Consider the validity of this assertion in
the case of any 20th century war of your choice. [May 1988]

“Political factors, not economic considerations are the major
cause of modern war”. With reference to ONE 20th century war
discuss this view. [May 1994]

“Wars are basically exercises in military power for the
achievement of nationalistic goals”. How reasonable is this
statement as a summary of the causes of the First World War?
[May 1987]

“Germany must bear ultimate responsibility for the outbreak of
the First World War”. How far do you agree with this
judgement? [May 1995]

“Wars settle nothing”. Examine the validity of this claim with
reference to any 20th century war you have studied. [May 1989]

“Peace settlements are ineffective unless accompanied by total
military victory”. Does 20th warfare bear this out?
[May 1993]
36
GCE Level History M. Nichols BWIC 2007-8
WHY DID GERMANY & THE CENTRAL POWERS
LOSE THE WAR?
2.
1.
3.
REASONS FOR DEFEAT
4.
5.
6.
7.
Assignment
Fill in the boxes on why you think Germany and her allies lost the War.
Be prepared to justify your answers, in a class discussion.
37