Transcript “Some Damned Foolish Thing in the Balkans”

ORIGINS OF THE GREAT WAR
(1870-1914)
1
“The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict. Unnecessary
because the train of events that led to its outbreak might have broken at any
point during five weeks of crisis that preceded the first clash of arms, had
prudence or common goodwill found a voice; tragic because the consequences
of the first clash end the lives of ten million human beings, tortured the
emotional lives of millions more, destroyed the benevolent and optimistic
culture of the European continent, and left, when the guns at last fell silent four
years later, a legacy of political rancour and racial hatred so intense that no
explanation of the causes of the Second World War can stand without reference
to those roots. The Second World War, five times more destructive of human life
and incalculably more costly in material terms, was the direct outcome of the
First…”
– John Keegan, The First World War
2
 1862
Otto von Bismarck was appointed prime
minister of Prussia
 Real Politik- “politics of reality”
• The advantages of war did not justify the risks involved
• Bismarck wages three wars to unify Germany:
 Danish War of 1864- split provinces b/w Germany and
Austria
 Austro-Prussian 1886 (7 Weeks’ War)- Northern German
Confederation
 Franco-Prussian War 1870- united Northern and Southern
Germany; loss of Alsace-Lorraine
 King William
I was named Kaiser of the Second
German Empire
1.
2.
3.
4.

nationalism
alliance system
Imperialism
militarism & “arms race”
An analysis of these causes suggests war was
inevitable and out of the hands of human actors.
“Nothing is inevitable until it happens.”
- A.J.P. Taylor, British historian
4




pan-Slavic nationalism was one of the few causes that Russia’s
ruling classes supported (religious, cultural similarities) – Russia
was horribly disunited in the early 1900s
Since gaining independence from Ottomans (1886), Serbia
desired to unite the Slavic peoples in a “greater Slavia”
(Yugoslavia) – many Slavs lived inside the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. Russian support of these peoples were the real menace.
A series of crises and small wars rocked the Balkans in 1908, 1912
and 1913 – in each case, Russia backed down from supporting the
Serbians.
Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia in 1908 to prevent nationalist
uprisings on its borders.
5
“Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like
men smoking in an arsenal…A single spark will set off an
explosion that will consume us all…I cannot tell you when
that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where…Some
damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.”
-Otto von Bismarck, 1890s
6


Nationalist
movements in the
Balkans were a
threat to the
stability of both
Austria-Hungary
and the Ottoman
Empire.
The collapse of
Ottoman rule in
the Balkans was
viewed from
Moscow as an
opportunity to
expand south
into the
Mediterranean.
7
Central Powers (Triple Alliance)
1.
2.
3.


Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy (had territorial grievances with A-H)
After 1870, Bismarck had always maintained a skillful policy of
avoiding encirclement by being in an alliance with at least 2 of
the continental powers, thus always isolating France.
After 1890,Kaiser Wilhelm II’s foreign policy (“place in the sun”),
support of Ottoman Empire, and allowing Russian alliance to
lapse, forced Germany to rely more on their alliance with AustriaHungary
8
Triple Entente(not an alliance)
1.
France (mutual defense alliance with Russia)
2.
Russia (industrial assistance and investment from France to
counter Germany)
3.
Britain (distrusted Russian ambitions in Mediterranean, but left
with no alternative)
9
Entente (not an alliance)



German foreign policy, empire-building after 1890 and creation of a
naval fleet was viewed in London with concern. This drew them into
a closer association with France (almost went to war in 1898 in
Fashoda – but found diplomatic solution. By 1904, France and
Britain had an understanding or “entente”).
Britain was feeling pressure of economic competition from
Germany and losing prestige. This sense of insecurity caused them
to abandon “splendid isolation” and become more involved in the
continent.
After 1905 Revolution and humiliation against Japan, Russia relied
heavily on French capital and expertise to modernize, industrialize
and improve her armed forces (this was an alliance of polar
opposites) France needed a strong ally on Germany’s eastern
border
10

This political cartoon shows
the German perspective of
the Anglo-French entente.
John Bull (Britain) is shown
being escorted away from a
possible friendship with
Germany by the prostitute
(France). The sword hidden
under the German’s cloak
suggests there will be future
consequences for this foolish
decision.
11
12




Heightened competition to acquire colonies that provide ports,
materials, and markets
Social Darwinism and Racism- “White man’s burden”
Britain viewed Germany as a threat to its global empire and prestige
as the leading economic power in Europe.
Fearing encirclement, Germany twice attempted to break up France
and Britain’s relationship by threatening French imperial ambitions
in North Africa (Morocco , 1905 and 1911). In the Second Moroccan
Crisis (1911) Germany used “gun boat diplomacy” to gain
territorial concessions in the Congo from France.
•
“Mansion House Speech”- David Lloyd George- Britain would not allow
Germany to pressure France
•
Events further pushed France and Britain together
13


Russia had fought a series of wars since 1870s against the
Ottomans and supported the cause of Serbia nationalism for
strategic reasons – it would help them gain influence in the
Balkans and gain access to the Mediterranean.
Austria-Hungary was in survival mode, and Serbian nationalism
and terrorist organizations inside the empire threatened its
existence, but were not powerful enough without Russian support
to seriously disrupt the empire. Russia was not prepared, nor
willing to fight over the Balkans in 1908 (Bosnia) or 1912-13
(Balkan Wars) – so Serbian ambitions were unsuccessful.
14


Germany financed a railway in
the Ottoman Empire and
increasing its military expertise
and capital to the Turks.
The German plan involved
pushing Russian influence out of
the Balkans, cutting Russia off
from the Mediterranean by
control of the Dardenelles, and
in opening up a way for Germany
to expand towards the Persian
Gulf and India.
15



Historians claim that the expectation of war and militarism among
the citizens of the Great Powers made general war more likely.
By 1914, Europe was two heavily armed power blocs. Most states
had adopted compulsory military service and had millions of
trained reservists.
“gun boat diplomacy” and the exercising of military power was a
legitimate means of solving international disputes in the 19th
century. Why should it be different now?
16



Anglo-German Naval Arms Race - Germany had tried, but
could not maintain, to build a navy to rival Britain. According to
American military strategist, Mahan, naval supremacy was the
key to global domination throughout history.
Germany’s attempt to build a massive fleet was viewed as an act
of aggression in London, but by 1907-08, Germany had
abandoned these plans – the army was more vital to its survival,
and the build up of battleships too expensive.
It is far fetched to claim the Anglo-German arms race as a
significant cause of the war, but it did indicate Britain’s sense of
insecurity and likely help to push her closer into the FrancoRussian entente (especially since the 1905 Russo-Japanese War
had temporarily eliminated Russia as a naval rival in the
Mediterranean).
17




By 1914, many of Europe’s military leaders were convinced that
war was inevitable – a sense of pessimism prevailed.
Given the existing tensions, all states had developed detailed war
plans that relied on precise timing and railway schedules to gain
the advantage of speedy mobilization (this is what won the
Franco-Prussian War, 1870).
Germany, maintaining a policy of trying to keep the largest army
in Europe, was by 1914 struggling to keep pace with Russian
build up and advantages in manpower.
Germany’s high command were worried that within a few years
Russia would have finished military upgrades, would be more
industrialized and would have completed its railways into the
western frontier – Germany would be doomed, according to
Germany’s military strategists.
18

Historians generally recognize that some long-term
developments played a role in the outbreak of war in 1914:
1.
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1914); “the German
Question”
2.
Collapse of Ottoman Empire & Balkan independence
movements; “the Eastern Question”
3.
Russo-Japanese War and 1905 Revolution
4.
Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia (1908)
5.
Balkan Wars (1912-13)
19

Those who argue convincingly that Germany was most responsible for
the conditions that created a general war point out a recklessness and
aggression that was apparent long before 1914:
1.
Moroccan Crises (1905, 1911)
2.
Naval arms race and military build up
3.
Seeking “a place in the sun” – empire building in Asia and Africa
4.
Ambitions in the Middle East was a threat to Suez
5.
Provided Krupp artillery guns to Boers and Afrikaners in Boer War;
Kaiser’s public support for Britain’s enemies in the war
“..it must be granted that [Germany’s] policies had for some years been rather
peremptory, arrogant, devious and obstinate.”
- Palmer, Colton, Kramer, A History of the Modern World
20
1.


2.

Germany:
Rise in political power of socialists; demands for greater
democratization and power-sharing was feared by traditional
elites and industrialists.
Successful war would unify the people
Austria-Hungary:
Very multi-ethnic population. Successful war against Serbia and
Russia would give them dominance in the Balkans and end
nationalist disturbances.
21
3.



Russia:
Tsar had recovered from 1905 by allowing a Duma
(parliament) but had been restricting its powers.
Increasingly relied on middle class and working class for
industrialization, but did not want to share power or reform
government. In the last years before war, the Duma’s powers
were curtailed.
Russian Empire contained hundreds of minorities and were
disunited. Attempts to “Russify” minorities had failed.
Civil unrest and strikes had rocked Russia in the last years
before the war. Successful war would unify the people
behind the Tsar and avoid future revolution.
22
4.


5.


France:
Had been rocked by military scandals, strikes and labor
unrest.
Industrial growth and population growth were stagnant and
faced a bleak future.
Britain:
Support for socialist Labor Party growing amidst declining
economic growth.
Had suffered some shocks to its prestige and was losing
ground to USA and Germany as the prime economic power.
German exports were challenging British economy.
23
1.
June 28, Sarajevo, Bosnia – Franz Ferdinand and his wife
assassinated
 Gavrillo Princip, a Serb nationalist, supported an
encouraged by the Black Hand, a terrorist organization
hoping to cause a war that would free Slavs from the
Hapsburgs.


Franz Ferdinand was a moderate reformer who might have
found compromise and allowed nationalist autonomy within
the empire. This would potentially have frustrated Serb goals.
No direct link to official Serbian government involvement has
ever been proven – Serbia’s civilian government did not want
war (having just fought in two Balkan Wars)
24
2.
3.
4.
Austria-Hungary could not let Serbia go unpunished and retain
prestige as a “great power”. Meant to send a message to
nationalists.
Russia had backed down in previous Balkan crises and felt it
could not back down in this one.
Germany had mounting paranoia about the improvement of
Russia’s armies, and the dependability of their weak ally – leaders
feared war with Russia or France, not rising out of the AustroSerbian dispute, might not result in Austria-Hungary on
Germany’s side?
25
July 28 –Austria-Hungary declares war with support of Germany
and the “Blank Check”

August 1 – Germany declared war on Russia. Britain still refused
to declare position to France.

August 3 – Germany declared war on France and invaded
Belgium.


August 4 – Britain declared war on Germany

WORLD WAR ONE HAS BEGUN!!!
•
1st international war of the industrial revolution; total war
26


Geographically “encircled” by France and Russia, Germany
feared being cut to pieces fighting a two-front war.
The Schlieffen Plan was to remedy this situation by attacking and
defeating France first, because Russia would take longer to
mobilize, then putting troops on trains to meet the Russians. This
had two important consequences:
1.
The plan necessitated Germany to involve France in a
continental war in any conflict involving Russia, thus
making a wider war more likely in a local conflict involving
the Balkans.
27




Germany’s Schlieffen
Plan was designed to
outflank France’s army and
capture Paris in six weeks,
but required an impossible
rate of speed to move men
and materials.
August 4th they started
their attack and made it 20
miles outside of Paris by
September
Halted at the Battle of the
Marne
Western Front
28
 1916-1917
millions of
sacrificed men for
little gains; example
10 months at Verdun
for 300,000 lives
 Trench Warfare
• Trench Foot
• Frostbite
• Rats
• Poison Gas
29
 Mobile War
 1914-
Russian were beat out of Germany
but later pushed the Austrians out of
Serbia
 Italians leave the Triple Alliance and
attack Austria in May 1915
 Germans come to the aid of Austria and
also eliminate Serbia from the war in
September of 1915
30
 Allie
strategy to attack the Ottoman
Empire and the Dardanelles along with
establishing a supply line to Russia
 Feb. 1915- Led by British, French,
Australian, and French troops
 Turned into a stalemate and by the time
of evacuation (December) 250,000 had
died
31

1.
The question of war guilt has been the focus of historical
controversy ever since the Paris Peace Conferences in 1919. Our
readings represent the two basic positions on the issue:
Palmer, Colton, Kramer, argue that the war was not Germany’s fault and
therefore the verdict at Versailles in 1919 was flawed:
“..it is not true that Germany started the war, as its enemies in 1914 popularly
believed...” – Palmer, Colton, Kramer, A History of the Modern World, p.
687.
2.
J.A.S. Grenville takes the traditional view that Germany and her allies
were primarily responsible and therefore the verdict of Versailles was
a justifiable one:
“The responsibility for starting the conflict in July and August must rest
primarily on the shoulders of Germany and Austria-Hungary…” - J.A.S.
Grenville, A History of the World, p. 59.

Which position is best supported by the evidence?
32

Key historians who argue that Germany was at fault:
1.
A.J.P. Taylor, British historian


2.
“war by timetable argument” – war plans, mobilization schedules, railroad
itineraries put events beyond the control of the diplomats in the final days of
the July Crisis
however, the war plans were necessary because of Germany’s reversal in
foreign policy after Bismarck’s retirement (1890) in which Germany became
increasingly aggressive and allowed alliances to lapse, leading to
encirclement
David Fromkin (Europe’s Last Summer) argues that Germany
deliberately used the assassination as a cause to start a global war


The war was no accident. German military leadership were convinced that
by 1916-18, Germany would be too weak to win a war with France, England
and Russia – this was a war desired by Germany, especially von Molke.
also argues that in all countries, but particularly Germany and Austria
documents were widely destroyed and forged to distort the origins of the
war.
33

Key historians who argue that Germany was at fault:
3.
Fritz Fischer, German historian – the “Fischer controversy” is at the
centre of the Great War origins debate




link between domestic fears of the German power elite (capitalists &
Junkers) and the expansionist aims of the Reich
the Prussian elites wanted war since 1912 (the year of sweeping socialist
gains in the Reichstag) and manipulated the Austrians into using the Casus
Belli (lawful cause of war) created by the assassination of Archduke into
starting WWI
uses Bethmann-Hollweg’s plan (September Program, 1914) for annexations
and economic mastery of Europe (Mitteleuropa) to argue that Germany
planned the war to avoid democratization and gain hegemony over central
Europe – is this “bad history”?
continuity between the war aims of the Reich in 1914, and Hitler’s Nazis in
the 1930s, and therefore there was something inherently rotten about
Germany in the 20th century
34

Key historians who argue that “structural factors” are to blame:
1.
Paul Kennedy, argues that Germany took the offensive against
legitimate and real threats.
2.
James Joll argues that interlocking system of alliances was
responsible, but points to other pressures such as domestic problems.
3.
George Kennan argues that the French-Russian alliance made war
inevitable – any Balkan quarrel would erupt in war
4.
Arthur Stoessinger argues that ultimately it was the system of decision
making in all of the Great Power governments that caused the war – a
handful of arrogant, stubborn and careless leaders dragged millions
into war.
35
“Finally, one is struck with the overwhelming mediocrity of the people involved.
The character of each of the leaders, diplomats, or generals was badly flawed
by arrogance, stupidity, carelessness, or weakness. There was a pervasive
tendency to place the preservation of one’s ego before the preservation of the
peace.”
- Stoessinger, Why Nations Go To War
36

Key historians who focus away from Germany:
1.
Arno Mayer – equally distributes blame, but Austrians were
especially desperate for war.

advocates that all of Europe - not just Germany - was beset by domestic
disturbances; all conservative European statesmen consciously used popular
nationalism and edged closer to war to preserve their social systems from
political opposition parties
2.
Samuel Williamson argues that Austria’s role has been overlooked.
The decision to wage war was ultimately Austria’s.
3.
Barbara Tuchman argues that careless and belligerent Russian
mobilization turned a local crisis into global war.
4.
Niall Ferguson refutes the notion that militarism, imperialism,
nationalism or the arms race made war inevitable – British policy in
the decade before 1914, but especially British diplomacy under Sir
Edward Grey created a global conflict from the local crisis.
37
“…Behind the ‘governments’ – the handful of men who made decisions in
Berlin,Vienna, Paris and St. Petersburg – stood populations willing to fight for
republic, king and emperor. Only a tiny minority dissented. For the largest
socialist party in Europe, the German, the war was accepted as being fought
against tsarist Russian aggression. The different nationalities of the Dual
Monarchy [Austria-Hungary] all fought for the Hapsburgs, the French socialists
fought as enthusiastically in the defence of their fatherland ruthlessly invaded
by the Germans…”
- J.A.S. Grenville, A History of the World
38



Explain why “the mere narration of successive crises does not
explain why the chief nations of Europe within a few days
became locked in combat over the murder of an imperial
personage”. Why did a world war break out in 1914?
In what ways, and with what results, was nationalism both a
unifying and destructive force in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century?
To what extent was Germany responsible for starting a
global war in 1914?
“The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
– Sir Edward Grey, August 4, 1914
39