WWI Basic Review
The Causes of War
War as the result of Human Nature:
States that war is the outcome of the very nature of human beings.
Supported by Confucius to present day behavioral scientists.
Implication: to prevent war one must change human nature!
Optimists: human nature can be modified to make war less likely
Pessimists: Human nature cannot be changed and war is inevitable.
Things that could be done to Change Human Nature:
Offer alternatives to war i.e.: demanding physical activities.
Education: humans to be educated with a love of peace and hatred of war (there are human
societies where war is unknown)
Cultural exchanges (better understanding btw peoples)
Screen Potential leaders: ensure that they are not predisposed towards violence.
Criticisms:
Human nature is infinitely variable.
Far too general for any practical use.
If war is caused by human nature then so is peace.
War As the Result of the Internal Structure of States:
Argues that wars are caused by ‘bad states´ / i.e.: an unpopular government engages in a
war against another state in an attempt to promote internal unity.
What is a ‘bad state´? In recent past bad = autocratic.
More difficult to define what constitutes a ‘good state´
Marxists define it in economic terms. Good state is one in which there is a fair distribution of
wealth.
USA and allies define it in political terms based on multi-party democracy, sovereignty of
people, …
Fundamentalists Islam defines it in terms of a states which bases itself upon the word of
God.
Therefore, this theory has not much practical value when attempting to eliminate war.
War as the result of the Structure of the State System:
Argues that war is the result of the nature of relations between states, i.e.: Gov. of a state
will represent its own interests and in the event of a serious clash in interests there will be
war.
Implications:
Groupings of states in an attempt to promote the wellbeing of all / establishment of an
alliance which would deter attack on an individual state / disarmament programs (i.e.:
NATO, Non-Proliferation treaty)
Transfer of authority from national Gov. to regional or global organizations (i.e.: EC, UN)
World Government!
Criticisms:
Alliances in the past arguably have been as much responsible for the outbreak of war as
they have been useful in preventing it.
It does not address the most common form of warfare since 1945: civil war.
The Origins of the First World War
1. German Responsibility:
Fischer’s View: (German Historian)
Germany responsible for war b/c of its aggressive pursuit of its weltpolitik.
Germany willed the war in order to realize expansionist ambitions and to resole an acute
domestic crisis.
Fear of ‘encirclement´ after the Triple Entente and Russian army reforms meant that ‘a
moment so favorable from a military point of view might never occur again´.
Germany put pressure on A-H to retaliate against Serbia (even if it meant General war) ß
‘blank cheque´
Criticism of Fischer:
German policy before 1914 seems contradictory and lacking in clear aims.
No evidence that German leader help expansionist aims before the ‘September Programme´
(which Fischer uses to explain the German desire for war)
Places too much importance on the domestic crisis in the decision to launch a war in 1914
Bulow and Hollweg dismissed war as a solution to the socialist problem.
More Correct View:
Distinguish btw Germany´s contribution to the growth in international tensions from 190013 w/ her role during the July crisis itself.
All Gov. responsible for tension until 1914 but not equally responsible for the fatal turn of
events — for which Germany was culpable.
2. The Responsibility of Other Powers:
Austro-Hungary:
Contributed to conflict in Balkans by lengthy delays in responding to Sarajevo. (i.e.: the
ultimatum to Serbia was not delivered until almost a month after Sarajevo.)
Declaration of war on Serbia came only 5 days after ultimatum
Refused to halt military operations (as Kaiser suggested) even though talks with Russia
were scheduled for July 30.
Russia:
Clear that Russia was the expansionist force in the Balkans.
Unable (unwilling?) to restrain/control Slaw nationalism even though it was a force
endangering peace/stability in Europe.
Balkan Wars might have been a ‘war by proxy´ for Russia.
Promise of support to Serbia (influenced decision to reject the ultimatum)
France: (not a crucial role)
Promised French support to Russia (but this was more the work of French ambassador in
Russia rather then official policy from Paris)
Hopes of recovering Alsace-Lorraine was worth fighting for but not sufficient for wanting
war.
Britain: (not a crucial role)
Underestimated gravity of crisis in late July.
Maybe a clearer statement of British intent to support France would have restrained Berlin.
Naval talks with Russia convinced the German Chancellor that the ‘ring of encirclement´
was complete.
The Balkans
Tension between Russia and A-H. (A-H´s prestige depended on its influence in the Balkans)
Pan-slavism / nationalism
Do NOT in themselves explain how an Austro-Serb dispute escalated into a general
European war.
Alliances, International Anarchy, and Armaments:
The system of alliances helps explain why so many powers became involved in the war of
1914.
After her isolation at the Algacires conference, Germany realized that A-H was virtually her
only ally and the alliance w/ A-H took on a new importance. (blank-cheque of 1914
transformed a defensive alliance into an offensive one)
Similarly France gave a ‘blank cheque´ (1912) to Russia turning a defensive alliance into an
offensive one.
The importance of the alliance systems was not its existence but rather that their defensive
nature had been altered.
Alliance system reduced flexibility of responses in the event of a crisis (i.e.: German
response to Franco-Russian alliance was the Schlieffen Plan, therefore the answer to a
Russian threat was to invade France!)
However in some respects the alliance system was in some disarray in early 1914 (i.e.:
Britain disenchanted w/ agreement w/ Russia over Persia // Britain still did not support
France by July 1914)
Yet the system of alliances had been successful before at preventing conflicts and
maintaining an aspect of a balance of power. Why did war break out in 1914? One answer is
that Germany was intent on war in 1914 (and thus rejected most proposals for mediation in
1914). Germany could not tolerate a diplomatic defeat for her ally.
The Arms Race can be both a cause and an effect of international tension.
Determination of Germany to become a naval power threatened Britain.
Russian army reforms (due to be completed by 1917) led to a point of view of the German
high command that a preventive war against Russia in 1914 made sense.
Maybe the arms race contributed to the feeling that war could not be postponed indefinitely.
Gov. in the leading states had warlike attitudes (i.e.: in Germany the General Staff had
enormous influence.)
However there was a current of anti-militarism in both France and Germany (i.e.: in the
socialist movements)
Capitalism, Imperialism and Nationalism
Capitalism:
Arguments For:
Simple belief that industrialists had an interest in provoking war
Capitalist economic pressures were the driving force behind imperialist rivalries.
Anglo German Trade Rivalry
Arguments Against:
Armaments manufacturers had markets overseas which might be lost in wartime.
Financiers needed stability.
Anglo-German commercial links were growing closed from 1904-1914.
Imperialism:
Lenin said that the war was an ‘imperialist war´ b/c it sought a re-division of colonial
territories.
Germany had a prime interest in acquiring the colonies of other states.
German Weltpolitik was a challenge to British/French Empires.
Yet, agreements were being made on colonial issues prior to the war.
Psychological consequences of a generation of imperialism: Exacerbating mutual suspicion
and hostility (contributed to the mood of 1914)
Contributed to ‘nationalist revival´
Conclusion:
Four central factors:
Legacy of Weltpolitik: failed by 1914 / harmed Germany´s relations with other powers /
meager achievements contrasted with its high expectations / increased German feeling of
insecurity.
Growth of Russian power: economic expansion, pop. growth, army reforms, and strategic
railways (close to German borders) alarmed Germany.
Disruptive effect of nationalism: threatened A-H in terms of her ability to act as a great
power & disintegration.
Inadequacy of Germany policy during the July crisis: failure to devise diplomatic alternatives
in case the Triple Entente held and France and Britain supported Russia.
Four subsidiary factors:
The decline of the ‘Concert of Europe´: statesmen unwilling to behave with restraint for the
sake of ‘Europe´ as a whole.
The Arms Race: increased expectations of war / led Germany to believe she had a better
chance of winning in 1914 rather then later.
The legacy of imperial rivalries: increased animosities among the great powers (affecting
public opinion, press, and Gov.)
The influence of domestic tensions: encouraged ruling circles to consider war as a relief
from such tensions.
World War One Peace Settlements
The Fourteen Point Program (January 1918 —
Woodrow Wilson)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Open Diplomacy
Freedom of Navigation
Free trade
Disarmament
Self-determination
Evacuation of all Russian Territory
Belgium must be evacuated and restored (from German occup.)
Freeing of French territory (Alsace-Lorraine)
Readjustment of Italian borders
Autonomous dev. for the peoples of A.H.
Independence for the Balkan states
Securing of Turkish territory/sovereignty / the Dardanelles as a
free passage
The establishment of an independent Poland
The creation of the League of Nations
Rejected by Germany immediately
The Armistice: (following a change in German Gov.)
o
o
o
o
France and G.B. changed the Fourteen point program
Absolute freedom of the seas was not offered
Germany would have to pay compensations
Signed on November 11th 1918 and WWI ended (after Ebert the
Socialist came to power in Germany following the abdication of
the Kaiser)
The positions of various countries on peace
negotiations:
o
o
o
o
o
USA: Wilson was most concerned with the long term and the
adoption of the Fourteen Point program (but not backed by
Senate)
France: wanted a peace that would never allow German attack
on France again (reparations, etc…) — destroy Germany
G.B.: The popular opinion was very hostile towards Germany —
cripple Germany
Italy: wanted to punish A.H. and obtain territory promised in
the 1915 Secret treaty — when no backed by allies on this,
Italy left the conference table and this later gave rise to
Fascism in Italy as Italians were not content on the peace
terms
Germany influenced the conference in that the allies (especially
Lloyd-George from G.B.) feared a communist revolution.
The Treaty of Versailles and other post-war
Treaties
you should know everything about Versailles by now!!!
Criticisms of the Settlement:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Didn’t respect the 14 Point Program:
Germany was not present
Britain did not give up right of search (for ships)
Tariff barriers increased (against free trade)
No multilateral disarmament
G.B. and France gained colonies
The Allies intervened in Russia
The Italian frontiers’ issue was not fixed
Self-determination was not applied
Should Germany have been present?
Could Germany afford the reparations?
Resentment in Germany at having to pay reparations
Divisions amongst the allies as over reparations
Keyne’s influence
Didn’t respect Self-determination
It was economic and strategic factors which influenced the
establishments of frontiers/countries
The ‘War guilt’ clause : was it necessary?
Created German resentment against the Versailles Settlement.
Were the allies entitled to the reparations they demanded?
Long term criticisms:
o
o
Treaties were completed in haste
Procedural difficulties (views of allies on how to deal with
matters differed)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The treaties were on the whole a compromise btw differing
views
The treaties assumed the allies would remain united
The USSR was excluded (this weakened the settlement)
It broke up A.H. This:
Created rivalries in the Balkans
Prevented economic cooperation in the newly formed states
The balance of power in Europe was disturbed
The league did not function as had been hoped
The changes brought by the settlement were incomplete.
Economic Consequences of WW1 and Reparations
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
There was a massive direct cost to all nations involved in WWI
The opportunity cost of all the resources used to destructive
ends
There was a change in the financial center of the world (from
Europe and G.B. to the USA) since European nations became
debtor nations
A fall in European living standards (European countries had to
cut down on imports)
Increase in USA’s economic strength
Decrease in international trade (lack of a stable currency)
Worldwide markets shrunk
Established trade patterns were disrupted
Intense hatred between the two sides meant that is was (in the
short term) impossible to reestablish previous trading patterns.
Few saw beyond the short term, therefore most politicians
sought revenge, and not the recovery of the defeated states
(this was also the result of popular opinion)
The Reparations Problem:



Division amongst the allies on this topic
The Germans did not believe such reparations could ever be paid
(especially with its post-war losses)
Countries relied on reparations to finance reconstruction and the
delaying of reparation payments meant the delaying of the
reconstruction process
Major Developments 1921-1933
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Genoa Conference (1922) — world economic conference
Prosperity could only be restored if recovery plans included all
countries (inter dependence of countries)
The conference failed
 The USA refused to attend
 French did not admit the Russians/Germans
 Germans & Russians had a revolution of their own
The occupation of the Ruhr (1923)
German workers refused to cooperate
The French and the Belgian intervened but the cost of
intervention outweighed any benefits made by the seizure of
German goods.
The German Economy collapsed — there was high inflation & it
was unable to pay reparations
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
There was social unrest in Germany (led to the rise of
movements like the fascists) however, a coup led by Hitler and
General Ludendorff failed
Britain refused to support France/Belgium
The Dawes Plan (1924)
End of occupation of the Ruhr
Two year moratorium of German reparation payments
International loan for Germany
Introduction of an annuity basis on reparations
Financial controls imposed on Germany
The Young Plan (1929)
The total sum owed by Germany was cut down by 25%
Annual payments fixed to run until 1966
In the event of financial difficulties a part of the payment could
be deferred for up to two years
1/3 of payments could be made in kind
International controls (established by Dawes Plan) were
abolished
Bank for International Settlements established
International loan made to Germany ($200 million)
October 1929: Wall Street Crash
1931: Germany stops reparation payments
1932: Lausanne conference: fixed reparation payments very
low
1933: Hitler became chancellor
Evaluation of Reparations:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Could Germany afford them?
Keynes criticized reparations. He later admitted he might have
underestimated Germany’s ability to pay reparations.
Some argued that there was a lack of will in Germany to pay
for reparations
Some argue that Hitler spent more on rearmament (in a short
time) then the total revised reparations payments
How much did Germany actually pay?
Estimations point to $9 billion but she receive $8 billion in loans
Reparation payments did little to help the recovery of the allies
Reparations contributed to inter-war period tensions
Britain and France linked war debts and reparations and
refused to pay war debts until reparations were paid to them