What caused World War 1?

Superficial and more fundamental causes


Nobody doubts that the 'trigger' or 'spark' was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by the Serbian Black Hand terrorists in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

The real question is this: Why was this crisis not dealt with in a more conventional, much less destructive way? There had been several crises before in the decade before 1914 and those involving the major powers in Europe had been settled peacefully. So did something go wrong in the handling of the crisis, or did one or more of the countries involved exploit the situation to plunge Europe into war?

(The view that somehow Europe simply stumbled into World War 1 by accident is generally not accepted by historians). It is at this point that controversy begins.

Austrian Response to the Assassination

The Austrians delivered an "ultimatum" to Serbia an ultimatum that was almost guaranteed to be turned down by Serbia. The Austrians had been looking for an excuse to declare war because of lingering disputes between the two countries. On July 5, 1914, Germany (which had reasons of its own for a war) gave Austria a "blank check", or unconditional guarantee of support in its actions against Serbia.

Provocations and Disputes

Disputes over territory, especially Morocco (including the Anglo-French-German Agadir crisis of July, 1911)

The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (a region heavily populated with Serbs) by Austria in 1908 (the Balkan Crisis)

Germany's gunboat diplomacy, meddling and conflicting alliances: "Weltpolitik"

Imperialism, nationalism, expansionism during the final stages of world Colonialism - the intense competition and power struggles among the European nations.

Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism & Nationalism

The growing tensions between the European countries were caused by:

Militarism The trend toward developing military resources, both for national defense and for the protection of colonial interests. Countries prepared for total war, using much of their resources to make armaments.

Alliances There were too many alliances, often conflicting ones. Every country was pledging to protect others, creating entangling mutual protection schemes.

Imperialism As fewer areas of the world were left to colonize, countries were competing for existing colonies, and seeking to expand their borders with neighboring nations.

Nationalism Jingoism and national unity were promoted by governments as a means of maintaining popular domestic support. In many countries, women were increasing their role in the workforce. This greatly expanded the available labor for industrial development, freeing manpower for the military while maintaining the production of armaments. Everyone was preparing for this war.
WWI was caused by nationalism


WWI was caused by nationalism. When the war was declared on Germany, people burst out on the street celebrating in France and Britain. If the population had not been primed to support the war, the government might not have started it!

WWI was the result of a long string of events dating back to the 1890's. Conflict in the Balkans and complex European alliances were the main causes. Germany had a huge role in this. They fought for the independence of Morocco in an attempt to break the alliance between France and Britain. Germany also participated in an arms race. Kaiser Wilhelm II started building up a navy, trying to surpass Britain's fleet. Since Britain was an island nation, and had many overseas colonies, it had a gigantic navy, so what the Kaiser was attempting to do was no easy feat. Germany wanted to increase its own colonial empire, and most of the good colonies were already taken. These actions and policies helped fuel the fire that was WWI.


The Triple Entente and The Central Powers

Long-term feuds and disputes, caused by imperialism and nationalism, resulted in the "Triple Entente". England, France and Russia created a common alliance opposed to the "Triple Alliance" of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. When war finally broke out, it was between the Entente and its supporters and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, see below).


The breakup of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine by France to Germany during the 1880s

In Eastern Europe: The breakup of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe, leading to the Slavic independence movements in areas such as Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia. The Serbian-Austrian relations were especially tense as Austria had demanded an independent Albania, thus preventing Serbia from expanding into the Adriatic during the 1900s. This aggressive movement led to increased tension between Russia and Austria as Russia supported the independence movements of the Slavs. Turkey then supported Austria to gain Austrian support.

In Western Europe: The loss of Alsace-Lorraine by France to Germany in 1871 led to much bad feeling between the two countries. The Kaiser's self-proclaimed goal that Germany "have a place in the sun" did nothing to ease tensions. Instead, the military buildup in Germany, especially the expansion of the Navy, drove Britain (alarmed at the direct challenge posed by the German High Seas Fleet to the British Royal Navy) into an alliance with France. When World War I began, everything began falling into place: Austria and the Ottoman Empire declared war on Serbia. This caused Russia and France to declare war on the both of them. And this led to Germany declaring war on Russia and France (which were allied with Britain). In order to attack France via the Schlieffen Plan (invasion of France via Belgium), Germany invaded Belgium. This direct violation of the neutrality guarantee led to Great Britain's declaring war on the Central Powers. The War was on.


The Peace Plan

After the archduke's assassination triggered WW1, Austria and Germany rejected a peace treaty proposed by Britain on July 26 of 1914. Instead of trying to work things out between Austria and Serbia, Germany wanted a cause for war. The assassination served as a spark, but it definitely didn't "cause" WW1.

There were many reasons for World War 1

There were many causes of World War One. These are just some of the important ones: 1. Britain and Germany were competing for the most powerful navy in the world, causing tension in Europe. 2. Many European countries were trying to get as many colonies in Africa as they could, so there was a lot of minor fighting. The result was that European countries weren't very friendly towards each other. 3.The French didn't trust the Germans because of a war that Germany won. 4. There was a new thing called nationalism. Countries felt that if there was a war they'd win very easily. 5. Many countries wanted to be independent. 6. The heir to the Austrian throne (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) was assassinated by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. The assassination caused war to be declared. Europe was a big tinderbox and the assassination was the spark.

There were Seven Causes of World War One

The first one is the Franco-Prussian war. During the Franco Prussian war France lost Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia (Germany). With the loss of their land, tension was created. The second cause was the alliance systems. When the triple entente and triple alliance were created, all of the countries were trying to build up a stronger power against each other. The third cause was the Balkan Powder Keg. The Balkans were in an area that other countries wanted but they believed that if something happened there, the countries would erupt in war. The fourth cause of WWI was imperialism. All of the countries were fighting over land in Africa to increase their nationalism. Nationalism is the fifth cause of WWI. People had so much nationalism that when the war was announced everyone was signing up to be included in it. This also led to the Arms race which is the sixth cause. The Arms Race was where all of the countries were building up their military. No country wanted to be behind another country in militarism. Then the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand occurred, which is the last cause of WWI. When he was killed by a Serbian, the Balkans were outraged and sparked the war to start. By the time that the Archduke was assassinated, the world was just looking for an excuse to start the war.

The Eighth Reason : German Military Leadership

According to the German historian Fritz Fischer, there is a wealth of documentary evidence that points a very clear, accusing finger at Germany. By "Germany" he doesn't of course mean all Germans, but the German General Staff. If one examines the German and Austrian documents together, it becomes very clear that there were 'hawks' and 'doves' in Vienna. At one point it looked as if the 'doves' were about to carry the day, and the consternation of the German General Staff knew no bounds. They used all their contacts and all their influence to make sure they got their 'jolly little war'. Austria-Hungary was put under immense pressure to escalate the crisis. This eighth reason is as important as the preceding seven put together.

There is also an interesting book by David Fromkin:

Europe's Last Summer: Who started the Great War in 1914? (2004)

Nationalism and Domestic Policies

There is a fascinating theory by Arno Mayer that the whole period from about 1910-1945 was one of profound crisis in Europe. In most countries the old elites, especially the land-owning classes, were experiencing immense difficulty in adapting to the results of industrialization, and were deeply alarmed at the prospect of losing any real role in society. They were also haunted by the spectre of unrest and revolution. As a result they were only too happy to deflect conflict from the domestic scene to foreign affairs and to form dangerous domestic alliances with new-style right-wing extremists. One of the astonishing features of the specific crisis that developed as a result of the Sarajevo assassination is that few of the great powers attached much value to maintaining the peace.

                                         World War I

How has imperialism affected India?

Answer

The effects of imperialism are both positive and negative. The positive effects are banning inhumane traditional practices such as sati and the dowry system, promoting widow remarriage and prohibiting child marriage. The negative effects are that Britain caused the traditional industries to crash. Also, poverty increased. British officials were paid out of the India treasury

THE GREAT IMPACT OF IMPERIALISM

Fundamentally, the imperialism idea comes from the early modernization concept that began with the 16th century. Afterwards renaissance, catholic reformation and reconnaissance actions follow this concept in order. Then geographical explorations take place in history and in this sense a lightening period exists by the help of these agendas. This lightening period consists of many different ideologies. We see these ideologies' changing and shaping time to time and one of these specific action-oriented ideas is seen as imperialism with its impact on some African and Asian part, in particular, the response of conquered areas to the "west" in late 19th century and early 20th century. In order to express what the imperialism is, it can be said that imperialism is an ideology to make good society by being rooted in a particular economic system, capitalism, and benefits a particular class, which Marxists call the bourgeoisie or ruling class. (Butterfield, 2002) In this sense, we see the colonization action of the "west" under the name of imperialism against the African and Asian part of the world in late 19th and early 20th century. In some countries we see the entire-colonization and in some of them there was semi-colonization according to some reasons that are related with their understanding of modernity and the way that they show their reactions. In general sense it can be implied that the reaction of Sub-Saharan Africa against the impact of "west imperialism" was more strict than the one in Central Asia; in terms of economic reasons, nationalism and religion.




To begin with the economic perspective of imperialism, imperialist countries' need of row material and market and the change in the meaning of imperialism seem to be the crucial point. Up to 17th century, imperialism was not related with capitalism because in these times land power was important. However in later period of time, especially in the late19th century the spread of industrialization in the world had achieved the point where international competition for markets was becoming profoundly. After the third threshold of industrial revolution, the new imperialist political ideologies became the state politics of European countries. In this sense colonization action of "west" powers takes place. As a provision, we see the strict; but at the same time invalid reaction of Africans. In Asian side, we don't see such kind of strict reaction as it is seen in Africa. This is because of their preparations against the probable imperialistic action of "west", that can be regarded as the extension of rapid modernization of "west". Especially European countries could not entirely colonized South Central Asian countries such as Iran and India. For example England could not fight with India; because India was not so weak in terms of economy and because of its economical interdependence, India's military modernization had been taken place in order to fight with any power. However the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa was not so pleasing. They were still living as tribal societies and they were ready to be treated as slave. First of all, by the investigations of the European missionaries, "west" were aware of the row material sources that were not used, such as cool and diamond. By the power in their hand, "west" took the region under control and made the people work for their benefit. They also made African pay taxes. Actually that led revolt against foreign occupation. Africans tried to kill the tax collectors as time goes by. For example in 1902 a tax collection exercise in Bailundo, in the center of what is now Angola, went badly wrong when local people rebelled violently, attacking tax collectors and traders (both European and African). This was the first time that Africans had rebelled against the Portuguese in Angola. (BBC WORLD SERVICE, no date) That shows how deeply they were affected from the power of "west". Also we understand that the gloom of Africans did not result from leaving their sources to "west" power. The main point that made them revolt was being made pay taxes.

Secondly in terms of nationalism, liberation struggles of colonized countries come next. Fundamentally, the idea of these struggles relies on the French Revolution and the nationalism idea that comes next. In this sense there are structured similarities between Asian and African independence struggles. However the only point that they differ from each other is the process of their struggles. It is because the Asian nations were more ready in terms of military concept by the qualified commanders that came from "west" in the colonization process. Thus their armies were trained professionally by the Europeans and they were ready to fight with the "west" by the technology that came from "west". Actually, it can be regarded as a contradiction in terms of training the nation and then loss of the colonized land because of the liberation action of that nation. In African side the situation was same; but their liberation process was too long. At that point the lack of modernization agendas can be shown as a reason.


One other point about liberation is the modern education concept in Africa and Asia that was supplied by Europeans. Thus we are faced with the same contradiction again. "West" was supplying the modern education as one of the prerequisite of imperialism and many scientists and thinkers were brought up. As time goes by these thinkers were affected by the ideologies such as nationalism. For example Indian national leader Gandhi was one of them and played a big role on gaining the independence of India after the 2nd World War. (Cody, 1990) In this example we see the specific show of the contradiction that is mentioned above.

Lastly to mention about the perspective of religion, the eurocenteric aim of spreading the Christianity all over the world under the idea of imperialism should be discussed. At that point, we see the similarity between South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa again as we saw in liberation concept. In 19th century most of the Asian and African nations were Muslim and this was a big obstacle for the "west" to achieve their aim. "West" tried to assimilate the Asia and Africa; but they both showed their reaction similarly against the "west". (Pappas, no date) If it is needed to combine religion with nationalism there is something to think about. If the African and Asian nations had been Christian; may be the nationalism idea would loose its validity and its impact on gaining the independence. Moreover, may be the colonized countries would be still colonized under the power of "west". So it is obvious that the religion diversity made colonized nations fight for their independent conceit.

To sum up the agendas of the impact of imperialist "west", the insufficiency in the process of modernization and because of this, being under the control of "west" can be expressed as a summary. In the above examples we see that the impact of "west" and the probable reaction of South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are based on some economical, ideological concepts and religion in the light of many specific processes. Also it was obvious that there were both similarities and diversities between Africa and Asia in the period of "west" imperialism and economical perspective was the most distinct one in terms of diversities. On the other hand in nationalism, liberation struggle, the hope of independence and independent conceit were the common points; although there was a little bit diversity in the sense of the process of these concepts.

Imperialism in India.

India

The Industrial Revolution:

Its affects and consequences

                                             Video

          In the last part of the 18th century, a new revolution gripped the world that we were not ready for. This revolution was not a political one, but it would lead to many implications later in its existance. Neither was this a social or cultural revolution. This revolution was an economic one.