Causes of World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the article on the war itself, see World War I.

European diplomatic alignments shortly before the war. Note: Germany and the Ottoman Empire
only formed an alliance shortly following the outbreak of the war.

Map of the world with the participants in World War I in 1917. Allies are in green, the Central
Powers in orange and neutral countries in grey.

The causes of World War I remain controversial and debated questions. The war began in the
Balkans in late July 1914 and ended in November 1918, leaving 17 million dead and 20 million
wounded.

Scholars looking at the long-term seek to explain why two rival sets of powers Germany and
Austria-Hungary on the one hand, and Russia, France, Serbia and Great Britain on the other
had come into conflict by 1914. They look at such factors as political, territorial and economic
conflicts, militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments, imperialism, the growth of
nationalism, and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Other
important long-term or structural factors that are often studied include unresolved territorial
disputes, the perceived breakdown of the balance of power in Europe,[1][2] convoluted and
fragmented governance, the arms races of the previous decades, and military planning.[3]

Scholars doing short-term analysis focused on summer 1914 ask if the conflict could have been
stopped, or whether it was out of control. The immediate causes lay in decisions made by
statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914. This crisis was triggered by the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by an ethnic Serb who had been supported
by a nationalist organization in Serbia.[4] The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-
Hungary and Serbia came to involve Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and
Great Britain. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis that preceded the war
included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that Britain would remain neutral),
fatalism that war was inevitable, and the speed of the crisis, which was exacerbated by delays
and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.

The crisis followed a series of diplomatic clashes among the Great Powers (Italy, France,
Germany, Britain, Austria-Hungary and Russia) over European and colonial issues in the
decades before 1914 that had left tensions high. In turn these public clashes can be traced to
changes in the balance of power in Europe since 1867.[5]

Consensus on the origins of the war remains elusive since historians disagree on key factors, and
place differing emphasis on a variety of factors. This is compounded by changing historical
arguments over time, particularly the delayed availability of classified historical archives. The
deepest distinction among historians is between those who focus on the actions of Germany and
Austria-Hungary as key and those who focus on a wider group of actors. Secondary fault lines
exist between those who believe that Germany deliberately planned a European war, those who
believe that the war was ultimately unplanned but still caused principally by Germany and
Austria-Hungary taking risks, and those who believe that either all or some of the other powers,
namely Russia, France, Serbia and Great Britain, played a more significant role in causing the
war than has been traditionally suggested.

Contents
1 Polarization of Europe, 18871914

o 1.1 German re-alignment to Austria-Hungary and Russian re-alignment to France,

18871892

o 1.2 French revanchist foreign policy towards Germany

o 1.3 British alignment towards France and Russia, 18981907: The Triple Entente

o 1.4 First Moroccan Crisis, 190506: Strengthening the Entente

o 1.5 Bosnian Crisis, 1908: Worsening relations of Russia and Serbia with Austria-
Hungary

o 1.6 Second Moroccan Crisis, 1911: The Entente holds again

o 1.7 Italo-Turkish War: Abandonment of the Ottomans, 191112

 o 1.8 Balkan Wars, 191213: Growth of Serbian and Russian power

o 1.9 Franco-Russian Alliance changes: The Balkan inception scenario, 19111913

o 1.10 Anglo-German dtente, 191214

2 July Crisis: The chain of events

o 2.1 Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian irredentists, 28 June

1914

o 2.2 Austria edges towards war with Serbia

o 2.3 "Blank Cheque" Germany supports Austria-Hungary, 6 July

o 2.4 Fermet France backs Russia, 2023 July

o 2.5 Austria-Hungary presents ultimatum to Serbia, 23 July

o 2.6 Russia mobilises The Crisis escalates, 2425 July

o 2.7 Serbia rejects the ultimatum, Austria declares war on Serbia 2528 July

o 2.8 Russia general mobilisation is ordered, 2930 July

o 2.9 German mobilisation and war with Russia and France, 13 August

o 2.10 Britain declares war on Germany, 4 August 1914

3 Domestic political factors

o 3.1 German domestic politics

o 3.2 The drivers of Austro-Hungarian policy

o 3.3 The drivers of Serbian Policy

4 Imperialism

o 4.1 The impact of Colonial rivalry and aggression on Europe in 1914

o 4.2 German isolation: Consequence of Weltpolitik?

o 4.3 German isolation: Consequence of The Triple Entente?

 o 4.4 Imperial opportunism: Italy Ottomans

o 4.5 Imperial opportunism France North Africa

o 4.6 Marxist intepretation

5 Social Darwinism

6 Web of alliances

7 Arms race

o 7.1 Anglo-German naval race

7.1.1 Russian interests in Balkans and Ottoman Empire

8 Technical and military factors

o 8.1 The 'Short war illusion'

o 8.2 Primacy of the offensive and war by timetable

9 Historiography

10 See also

11 Notes

12 Citations

13 References

14 Further reading

o 14.1 Historiography

o 14.2 Primary sources

15 External links

Polarization of Europe, 18871914

To understand the long term origins of the war in 1914 it is essential to understand how the
powers formed into two competing sets sharing common aims and enemies. These two sets
became, by August 1914, Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one hand and Russia, France,
Serbia and Great Britain on the other.

German re-alignment to Austria-Hungary and Russian re-alignment to France,

18871892

In 1887 German and Russian alignment was secured by means of a secret Reinsurance Treaty
arranged by Otto von Bismarck. However, in 1890 the treaty was allowed to lapse in favor of the
Dual Alliance (1879) between Germany and Austria-Hungary. In response Russia secured the
Franco-Russian Alliance in 1892, which was to last until 1917.

French revanchist foreign policy towards Germany

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding
citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

French Emperor Napoleon III (left) as prisoner of Bismarck (right) in the Franco-Prussian War

Some of the distant origins of World War I can be seen in the results and consequences of the
Franco-Prussian War in 187071 and the concurrent Unification of Germany. Germany had won
decisively and established a powerful Empire, while France fell into chaos and military decline
for years. A legacy of animosity grew between France and Germany following the German
annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. The annexation caused widespread resentment in France, giving
rise to the desire for revenge, known as revanchism. French sentiments wanted to avenge
military and territorial losses and the displacement of France as the pre-eminent continental
military power. French defeat in the war had sparked political instability, culminating in a
revolution and the formation of the French Third Republic.

Bismarck was wary of French desire for revenge; he achieved peace by isolating France and
balancing the ambitions of Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans. During his later years he
tried to placate the French by encouraging their overseas expansion. However, anti-German
sentiment remained. A Franco-German colonial entente that was made in 1884 in protest of an
Anglo-Portuguese agreement in West Africa proved short-lived after a pro-imperialist
government under Jules Ferry in France fell in 1885.

France eventually recovered from its defeat, paid its war indemnity, and rebuilt its military
strength again. But it was smaller than Germany in terms of population, and thus felt insecure
next to its more powerful neighbor.
British alignment towards France and Russia, 18981907: The Triple Entente

Britain abandoned the policy of holding aloof from the continental powers, so called "Splendid
Isolation", in the 1900s after being isolated during the Boer War. Britain concluded agreements,
limited to colonial affairs, with her two major colonial rivals, the Entente Cordiale with France in
1904 and the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907. Some historians see Britain's alignment as
principally a reaction to an assertive German foreign policy and the buildup of its navy from
1898 which led to the Anglo-German naval arms race.[6]

Others, most notably Niall Ferguson, argue that Britain chose France and Russia over Germany
because Germany was too weak an ally to provide an effective counterbalance to the other
powers and could not provide Britain with the imperial security achieved by the entente
agreements.[7] In the words of British diplomat Arthur Nicolson it was "far more disadvantageous
to us to have an unfriendly France and Russia than an unfriendly Germany".[8] Ferguson argues
that the British Government rejected German alliance overtures "not because Germany began to
pose a threat to Britain, but, on the contrary because they realized she did not pose a threat".[9]
The impact of the Triple Entente was therefore twofold, to improve British relations with France
and her ally Russia and to demote the importance to Britain of good relations with Germany. It
was "not that antagonism toward Germany caused its isolation, but rather that the new system
itself channeled and intensified hostility towards the German Empire".[10]

The so-called Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia is often compared to the Triple
Alliance between Germany, AustriaHungary and Italy, but historians caution against the
comparison. The Entente, in contrast to the Triple Alliance or the Franco-Russian Alliance, was
not an alliance of mutual defence and Britain therefore felt free to make her own foreign policy
decisions in 1914. As British Foreign Office Official Eyre Crowe minuted: "The fundamental
fact of course is that the Entente is not an alliance. For purposes of ultimate emergencies it may
be found to have no substance at all. For the Entente is nothing more than a frame of mind, a
view of general policy which is shared by the governments of two countries, but which may be,
or become, so vague as to lose all content."[11]

A series of diplomatic incidents between 1905 and 1914 heightened tensions between the Great
Powers and reinforced the existing alignments, beginning with the First Moroccan Crisis.

First Moroccan Crisis, 190506: Strengthening the Entente

The First Moroccan Crisis (also known as the Tangier Crisis) was an international crisis between
March 1905 and May 1906 over the status of Morocco. The crisis worsened German relations
with both France and the United Kingdom, and helped ensure the success of the new Anglo-
French Entente Cordiale. In the words of historian Christopher Clark "The Anglo-French Entente
was strengthened rather than weakened by the German challenge to France in Morocco".[12]

Bosnian Crisis, 1908: Worsening relations of Russia and Serbia with Austria-
Hungary
In 1908 Austria-Hungary announced its annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dual provinces
in the Balkan region of Europe formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Though Bosnia and Herzegovina were still nominally under the control of the Ottoman Sultan in
1908, Austria-Hungary had administered the provinces since the Congress of Berlin in 1878,
when the great powers of Europe awarded the Dual Monarchy the right to occupy the two
provinces, with the legal title to remain with Turkey.

The announcement in October 1908 of Austria-Hungarys annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

upset the fragile balance of power in the Balkans, enraging Serbia and pan-Slavic nationalists
throughout Europe. Though weakened Russia was forced to submit, to its humiliation, its foreign
office still viewed Austria-Hungarys actions as overly aggressive and threatening. Russia's
response was to encourage pro-Russian, anti-Austrian sentiment in Serbia and other Balkan
provinces, provoking Austrian fears of Slavic expansionism in the region.

Second Moroccan Crisis, 1911: The Entente holds again

The Agadir Crisis (also called the Second Moroccan Crisis or the Panthersprung) was the
international tension sparked by the deployment of a substantial force of French troops in the
interior of Morocco in April 1911. Germany reacted by sending the gunboat SMS Panther to the
Moroccan port of Agadir on 1 July 1911.

Rather than scaring Britain into turning toward Germany, increased fear and hostility drew
Britain closer to France. British backing of France during the crisis reinforced the Entente
between the two countries (and with Russia as well), increasing Anglo-German estrangement,
deepening the divisions which would culminate in World War I.

Significantly for the events of August 1914, the crisis led British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey
and France to make a secret naval agreement where the Royal Navy promised to protect the
northern coast of France from German attack, while France concentrated her fleet in the western
Mediterranean and agreed to protect British interests there. France was thus able to guard her
communications with her North African colonies, and Britain to concentrate more force in home
waters to oppose the German High Seas Fleet. The Cabinet was not informed of this agreement
until August 1914.

Italo-Turkish War: Abandonment of the Ottomans, 191112

The Italo-Turkish War or Turco-Italian War (Turkish: Trablusgarp Sava, "Tripolitanian War";
also known in Italy as Guerra di Libia, "Libyan War") was fought between the Ottoman Empire
and the Kingdom of Italy in North Africa from September 29, 1911, to October 18, 1912. As a
result of this conflict, Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet (province), of which the
most notable sub-provinces (sanjaks) were Fezzan, Cyrenaica, and Tripoli itself. These territories
together formed what became known as Italian Libya. The main significance for the First World
War was that this war made it clear that no Great Power appeared to wish to support the Ottoman
Empire any longer and this paved the way for the Balkan Wars. Christopher Clark stated: "Italy
launched a war of conquest on an African province of the Ottoman Empire, triggering a chain of
opportunistic assaults on Ottoman territories across the Balkans. The system of geographical
balances that had enabled local conflicts to be contained was swept away." [13]

Balkan Wars, 191213: Growth of Serbian and Russian power

The Balkan Wars were two conflicts that took place in the Balkan Peninsula in south-eastern
Europe in 1912 and 1913. Four Balkan states defeated the Ottoman Empire in the first war; one
of the four, Bulgaria, was defeated in the second war. The Ottoman Empire lost nearly all of its
holdings in Europe. Austria-Hungary, although not a combatant, was weakened as a much-
enlarged Serbia pushed for union of the South Slavic peoples.

The Balkan Wars in 19121913 increased international tension between the Russian Empire and
Austria-Hungary. It also led to a strengthening of Serbia and a weakening of the Ottoman Empire
and Bulgaria, who might otherwise have kept Serbia under control, thus disrupting the balance of
power in Europe in favor of Russia.

Russia initially agreed to avoid territorial changes, but later in 1912 supported Serbia's demand
for an Albanian port. The London Conference of 191213 agreed to create an independent
Albania; however both Serbia and Montenegro refused to comply. After an Austrian, and then an
international, naval demonstration in early 1912 and Russia's withdrawal of support, Serbia
backed down. Montenegro was not as compliant and on May 2, the Austrian council of ministers
met and decided to give Montenegro a last chance to comply and, if it would not, then to resort
to military action. However, seeing the Austrian military preparations, the Montenegrins
requested the ultimatum be delayed and complied.[14]

The Serbian government, having failed to get Albania, now demanded that the other spoils of the
First Balkan War be reapportioned and Russia failed to pressure Serbia to back down. Serbia and
Greece allied against Bulgaria, which responded with a preemptive strike against their forces,
beginning the Second Balkan War.[15] The Bulgarian army crumbled quickly when Turkey and
Romania joined the war.

The Balkan Wars strained the German/Austro-Hungarian alliance. The attitude of the German
government to Austrian requests of support against Serbia was initially both divided and
inconsistent. After the German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912, it was clear that
Germany was not ready to support Austria-Hungary in a war against Serbia and her likely allies.

In addition, German diplomacy before, during, and after the Second Balkan War was pro-Greek
and pro-Romanian and in opposition to Austria-Hungary's increasingly pro-Bulgarian views. The
result was tremendous damage to Austro-German relations. Austrian foreign minister Leopold
von Berchtold remarked to German ambassador Heinrich von Tschirschky in July 1913 that
"Austria-Hungary might as well belong 'to the other grouping' for all the good Berlin had been".
[16]

In September 1913, it was learned that Serbia was moving into Albania and Russia was doing
nothing to restrain it, while the Serbian government would not guarantee to respect Albania's
territorial integrity and suggested there would be some frontier modifications. In October 1913,
the council of ministers decided to send Serbia a warning followed by an ultimatum: that
Germany and Italy be notified of some action and asked for support, and that spies be sent to
report if there was an actual withdrawal. Serbia responded to the warning with defiance and the
Ultimatum was dispatched on October 17 and received the following day. It demanded that
Serbia evacuate Albanian territory within eight days. Serbia complied, and the Kaiser made a
congratulatory visit to Vienna to try to fix some of the damage done earlier in the year.[17]

By this time, Russia had mostly recovered from its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and the
calculations of Germany and Austria were driven by a fear that Russia would eventually become
too strong to be challenged. Their conclusion was that any war with Russia had to occur within
the next few years in order to have any chance of success.[18]

Franco-Russian Alliance changes: The Balkan inception scenario, 19111913

The original Franco-Russian alliance was formed to protect both France and Russia from a
German attack. In the event of such an attack both states would mobilize in tandem, placing
Germany under the threat of a two-front war. However, there were limits placed on the alliance
so that it was essentially defensive in character.

Throughout the 1890s and the 1900s the French and the Russians made clear the limits of the
alliance did not extend to provocations caused by the others' adventurous foreign policy. For
example, Russia warned France that the alliance would not operate if the French provoked the
Germans in North Africa. Equally, the French insisted to the Russians that they should not use
the alliance to provoke Austria-Hungary or Germany in the Balkans, and that France did not
recognise in the Balkans a vital strategic interest for France or for Russia.

In the last 18 to 24 months before the outbreak of the war, this changed. At the end of 1911 and
particularly during the Balkans wars themselves in 191213, the French view changed. France
now accepted the importance of the Balkans to Russia. Moreover, France clearly stated that if, as
a result of a conflict in the Balkans, war were to break out between Austria-Hungary and Serbia,
France would stand by Russia. Thus the Franco-Russian alliance changed in character, and by a
consequence of that Serbia became a security salient for Russia and France. As they bought into
the future scenario of a war of Balkan inception, regardless of who started such a war, the
alliance would respond nonetheless. It would view this conflict as a casus foederis: as a trigger
for the alliance. Christopher Clark described this change as "a very important development in the
pre-war system which made the events of 1914 possible".[19]

Anglo-German dtente, 191214

Historians caution that, taken together, the preceding crisis should not be seen as an argument
that a European war was inevitable in 1914.

Significantly, the Anglo-German Naval Race was over by 1912. In April 1913, Britain and
Germany signed an agreement over the African territories of the Portuguese empire which was
expected to collapse imminently. Moreover, the Russians were threatening British interests in
Persia and India to the extent that in 1914, there were signs that the British were cooling in their
relations with Russia and that an understanding with Germany might be useful. The British were
"deeply annoyed by St Petersburg's failure to observe the terms of the agreement struck in 1907
and began to feel an arrangement of some kind with Germany might serve as a useful
corrective."[8]

British Diplomat Arthur Nicolson wrote in May 1914, Since I have been at the Foreign Office I
have not seen such calm waters.[20]

July Crisis: The chain of events

June 28, 1914: Serbian irredentists assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire.

June 30: Austrian Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold and Emperor Franz Josef
agree that the "policy of patience" with Serbia was at an end and a firm line must be
taken.

July 5: Austrian Diplomat Alexander, Count of Hoyos visits Berlin to ascertain German
attitudes.

July 6: Germany provides unconditional support to Austria-Hungary the so-called

"blank check".

July 2023: French President Raymond Poincar, on state visit to the Tsar at St
Petersburg, urges intransigent opposition to any Austrian measure against Serbia.

July 23: Austria-Hungary, following their own secret enquiry, sends an ultimatum to
Serbia, containing their demands, and gives only forty-eight hours to comply.

July 24: Sir Edward Grey, speaking for the British government, asks that Germany,
France, Italy and Great Britain, "who had no direct interests in Serbia, should act together
for the sake of peace simultaneously."[21]

July 24: Serbia seeks support from Russia and Russia advises Serbia not to accept the
ultimatum.[22] Germany officially declares support for Austria's position.

July 24 Russian Council of Ministers agrees secret partial mobilisation of the Russian
Army and Navy.

July 25: Tsar approves Council of Ministers decision and Russia begins partial
mobilization of 1.1 million men against the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.[23]
 July 25: Serbia responds to Austro-Hungarian dmarche with less than full acceptance
and asks that the Hague Tribunal arbitrate. Austria-Hungary breaks diplomatic relations
with Serbia. Serbia mobilizes its army.

July 26: Serbian reservists accidentally violate Austro-Hungarian border at Temes-Kubin.

[24]

July 26: A meeting is organised to take place between ambassadors from Great Britain,
Germany, Italy and France to discuss the crisis. Germany declines the invitation.

July 28: Austria-Hungary, having failed to accept Serbia's response of the 25th, declares
war on Serbia. Austro-Hungarian mobilisation against Serbia begins.

July 29: Sir Edward Grey appeals to Germany to intervene to maintain peace.

July 29: The British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen, is informed by the
German Chancellor that Germany is contemplating war with France, and furthermore,
wishes to send its army through Belgium. He tries to secure Britain's neutrality in such an
action.

July 29: In the morning Russian general mobilisation against Austria and Germany is
ordered; in the evening[25] the Tsar chooses for partial mobilization after a flurry of
telegrams with Kaiser Wilhelm.[26]

July 30: Russian general mobilization is reordered by the Tsar on instigation by Sergei
Sazonov.

July 31: Austrian general mobilization is ordered.

July 31: Germany enters a period preparatory to war.

July 31: Germany sends an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt general
mobilization within twelve hours, but Russia refuses.

July 31: Both France and Germany are asked by Britain to declare their support for the
ongoing neutrality of Belgium. France agrees to this. Germany does not respond.

July 31: Germany asks France whether it would stay neutral in case of a war Germany vs.
Russia.

August 1: German general mobilization is ordered, deployment plan 'Aufmarsch II West'

chosen.

August 1: French general mobilization is ordered, deployment Plan XVII chosen.

 August 1: Germany declares war against Russia.

August 1: The Tsar responds to the king's telegram, stating, "I would gladly have
accepted your proposals had not the German ambassador this afternoon presented a note
to my Government declaring war."

August 2: Germany and the Ottoman Empire sign a secret treaty[27] entrenching the
OttomanGerman Alliance.

August 3: Germany, after France declines (See Note) its demand to remain neutral,[28]
declares war on France. Germany states to Belgium that she would "treat her as an
enemy" if she did not allow free passage of German troops across her lands.

August 4: Germany implements offensive operation inspired by Schlieffen Plan.

August 4 (midnight): Having failed to receive notice from Germany assuring the
neutrality of Belgium, Britain declares war on Germany.

August 6: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia.

August 23: Japan, honoring the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, declares war on Germany.

August 25: Japan declares war on Austria-Hungary.

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian irredentists, 28 June

1914

On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-
Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead in Sarajevo by
Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six assassins (five Serbs and one Bosniak) coordinated by
Danilo Ili, a Bosnian Serb and a member of the Black Hand secret society.

The assassination is significant because it was perceived by Austria-Hungary as an existential

challenge to her and in her view provided a casus belli with Serbia. The Austrian Emperor Franz
Joseph was aged 84, so the assassination of his heir, so soon before he was likely to hand over
the crown, was seen as a direct challenge to Austrian polity. Moreover, the Archduke, who had
been a decisive voice for peace in the previous years, had now been removed from the
discussions. The assassination triggered the July Crisis, which turned a local conflict into a
European, and then a worldwide, war.

Austria edges towards war with Serbia

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir apparent to the Austrian throne, sent
deep shockwaves through Austrian elites, and the murder has been described as a "9/11 effect, a
terrorist event charged with historic meaning, transforming the political chemistry in Vienna. [29]
Although they were not personally close, the Emperor Franz Joseph was profoundly shocked and
upset. It quickly emerged that three leading members of the assassination squad had spent long
periods of time in Belgrade, had only recently crossed the border from Serbia, and were carrying
weapons and bombs of Serbian manufacture. They were secretly sponsored by the Black Hand,
whose objectives included the liberation of all Bosnian Slavs from Austrian rule, and
masterminded by the Head of Serbian Military intelligence, Apis.

Two days after the assassination, Foreign Minister Berchtold and the Emperor agreed that the
policy of patience with Serbia was at an end. Austria feared that if she displayed weakness,
their neighbours to the South and East would be emboldened, whereas war with Serbia would put
to an end the problems the dual monarchy had experienced with Serbia. Chief of Staff Franz
Conrad von Htzendorf stated of Serbia: If you have a poisonous adder at your heel, you stamp
on its head, you dont wait for the bite. [29]

There was also a feeling that the moral effects of military action would breathe new life into the
exhausted structures of the Habsburg monarchy, restoring it to the vigour and virility of an
imagined past, and that Serbia must be dealt with before it became too powerful to defeat
militarily.[30] The principal voices for peace in previous years included Franz Ferdinand himself.
His removal not only provided the casus belli but removed one of the most prominent doves
from policymaking.

Since taking on Serbia involved the risk of war with Russia, Vienna sought the views of Berlin.
The Germans provided their unconditional support for war with Serbia, the so-called "Blank
Cheque. Buoyed up by German support the Austrians began drawing up an ultimatum, giving
the Serbs forty-eight hours to respond to ten demands. The Austrians hoped that the ultimatum
would be rejected in order to provide the pretext for war with a neighbour they considered to be
impossibly turbulent.

Samuel R. Williamson, Jr. has emphasized the role of Austria-Hungary in starting the war.
Convinced Serbian nationalism and Russian Balkan ambitions were disintegrating the Empire,
Austria-Hungary hoped for a limited war against Serbia and that strong German support would
force Russia to keep out of the war and weaken its Balkan prestige.[31]

At this stage in the crisis the possibility of determined Russian support for Serbia, and its
attendant risks, was never properly weighed up. The Austrians remained fixated on Serbia but
did not decide on their precise objectives other than war.[29]

Nevertheless, having decided upon war with German support, Austria was slow to act publicly,
and did not deliver the ultimatum until July 23, some three weeks after the assassinations on 28
June. Thus Austria lost the reflex sympathies attendant to the Sarajevo murders and gave the
further impression to the Entente powers that Austria was merely using the assassinations as a
pretext for aggression.[32]

"Blank Cheque" Germany supports Austria-Hungary, 6 July

On July 6 Germany provided its unconditional support to its ally Austria-Hungary in its quarrel
with Serbia the so-called "blank cheque. In response to a request for support, Vienna was told
the Kaiser's position was that, if Austria-Hungary "recognised the necessity of taking military
measures against Serbia he would deplore our not taking advantage of the present moment which
is so favourable to us...we might in this case, as in all others, rely upon German support[33][34]

The thinking was as Austria-Hungary was Germanys only ally, if its prestige was not restored
then its position in the Balkans might be irreparably damaged, encouraging further irredentism
by Serbia and Romania.[35] A quick war against Serbia would not only eliminate her, but also
probably lead to further diplomatic gains vis a vis Bulgaria and Romania. A Serbian defeat would
also be a defeat for Russia and reduce her influence in the Balkans.

The benefits were clear but there were risks, namely that Russia would intervene and this would
lead to a continental war. However, this was thought even more unlikely since the Russians had
not yet finished their French-funded rearmament programme scheduled for completion in 1917.
Moreover, they did not believe that Russia, as an absolute monarchy, would support regicides,
and more broadly the mood across Europe was so anti-Serbian that even Russia would not
intervene. Personal factors also weighed heavily and the German Kaiser was close to the
murdered Franz Ferdinand and was affected by his death, to the extent that German counsels of
restraint vis a vis Serbia in 1913 changed to an aggressive stance.[36]

On the other hand, the military thought that if Russia did intervene then St Petersburg clearly
desired war and now would be a better time to fight, when Germany had a guaranteed ally in
Austria-Hungary, Russia was not ready and Europe was sympathetic to them. On balance, at this
point in the crisis, the Germans anticipated that their support would mean the war would be a
localised affair between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. This would be particularly true if Austria
moved quickly, "while the other European powers were still disgusted over the assassinations
and therefore likely to be sympathetic to any action Austria-Hungary took.[37]

Fermet France backs Russia, 2023 July

French President Raymond Poincar arrived in St. Petersburg for a state visit on 20 July and
departed on 23 July. Due to the breaking of the Austrian codes, Russia and France were aware of
the impending Austrian ultimatum and their meetings were centrally concerned with the crisis
unfolding in central Europe.

The French and the Russians agreed their alliance extended to supporting Serbia against Austria,
confirming the already established policy behind the Balkan inception scenario. As Christopher
Clark notes "Poincare had come to preach the gospel of firmness and his words had fallen on
ready ears. Firmness in this context meant an intransigent opposition to any Austrian measure
against Serbia. At no point do the sources suggest that Poincare or his Russian interlocutors gave
any thought whatsoever to what measures Austria-Hungary might legitimately be entitled to take
in the aftermath of the assassinations".[38]

On 21 July, the Russian Foreign Minister warned the German ambassador to Russia that "Russia
would not be able to tolerate Austria-Hungary's using threatening language to Serbia or taking
military measures." The leaders in Berlin discounted this threat of war. German foreign minister
Gottlieb von Jagow noted there is certain to be some blustering in St. Petersburg. German
Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg told his assistant that Britain and France did not
realize that Germany would go to war if Russia mobilized. He thought London saw a German
"bluff" and was responding with a "counterbluff."[39] Political scientist James Fearon argues from
this episode that the Germans believed Russia were expressing greater verbal support for Serbia
than they would actually provide, in order to pressure Germany and Austria-Hungary to accept
some Russian demands in negotiation. Meanwhile Berlin was downplaying its actual strong
support for Vienna so as to not appear the aggressor, for that would alienate German socialists.[40]

Austria-Hungary presents ultimatum to Serbia, 23 July

On 23 July, Austria-Hungary, following their own enquiry into the assassinations, sends an
ultimatum to Serbia, containing their demands, giving forty-eight hours to comply.

Russia mobilises The Crisis escalates, 2425 July

On 2425 July the Russian Council of Ministers met, and in response to the crisis and despite the
fact that she had no alliance with Serbia, agreed to a secret partial mobilisation of over one
million men of the Russian Army and the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets. It is worth stressing, since
this is a cause of some confusion in general narratives of the war, that this was done prior to the
Serbian rejection of the ultimatum, the Austrian declaration of war on 28 July or any military
measures taken by Germany. As a diplomatic move this had limited value since the Russians did
not make this mobilisation public until 28 July.

The arguments used to support this move in the Council of Ministers were:

The crisis was being used as a pretext by the Germans to increase their power

Acceptance of the ultimatum would mean that Serbia would become a protectorate of
Austria

Russia had backed down in the past for example in the Liman von Sanders affair and
the Bosnian Crisis and this had encouraged the Germans rather than appeased them

Russian arms had recovered sufficiently since the disasters of 190406

In addition Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov believed that war was inevitable and
refused to acknowledge that Austria-Hungary had a right to counter measures in the face of
Serbian irredentism. On the contrary, Sazonov had aligned himself with the irredentism, and
expected the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Crucially, the French had provided their
clear support for their Russian allies for a robust response in their recent state visit just days
before. Also in the background was Russian anxiety of the future of the Turkish straits "where
Russian control of the Balkans would place St Petersburg in a far better position to prevent
unwanted intrusions on the Bosphorus [41]
The policy was intended to be a mobilisation against Austria-Hungary only. However, due to
Russian incompetence, the Russians realised by 29 July that partial mobilisation was not
militarily possible, and as it would interfere with general mobilisation, only full mobilisation
could prevent the entire operation being botched. The Russians therefore moved to full
mobilisation on 30 July.

Christopher Clark stated "It would be difficult to overstate the historical importance of the
meetings of 24 and 25 July"[42] and "In taking these steps, [Russian Foreign Minister] Sazonov
and his colleagues escalated the crisis and greatly increased the likelihood of a general European
war. For one thing, Russian pre-mobilization altered the political chemistry in Serbia, making it
unthinkable that the Belgrade government, which had originally given serious consideration to
accepting the ultimatum, would back down in the face of Austrian pressure. It heightened the
domestic pressure on the Russian administration...it sounded alarm bells in Austria-Hungary.
Most importantly of all, these measures drastically raised the pressure on Germany, which had so
far abstained from military preparations and was still counting on the localisation of the Austro-
Serbian conflict."[43]

Serbia rejects the ultimatum, Austria declares war on Serbia 2528 July

Serbia initially considered accepting all the terms of the Austrian ultimatum before news from
Russia of pre mobilisation measures stiffened their resolve.[44]

The Serbs drafted their reply to the ultimatum in such a way as to give the impression of making
significant concessions but, as Christopher Clark states "In reality, then, this was a highly
perfumed rejection on most points.[45] In response to the rejection of the ultimatum, Austria
immediately broke off diplomatic relations on 25 July and declared war on 28 July.

Russia general mobilisation is ordered, 2930 July

On July 29, 1914, the Tsar ordered full mobilization, then changed his mind after receiving a
telegram from Kaiser Wilhelm. Partial mobilization was ordered instead. The next day, the Tsar's
foreign minister, Sergey Sazonov once more persuaded Nicholas of the need for general
mobilization, and the order was issued that day, July 30

Christopher Clark states: "The Russian general mobilisation was one of the most momentous
decisions of the July crisis. This was the first of the general mobilisations. It came at the moment
when the German government had not yet even declared the State of Impending War"[46]

Why did Russia do this?

In response to the Austrian declaration of war on 28 July.

The previously ordered partial mobilisation was incompatible with a future general
mobilisation
 Sazonovs conviction that Austrian intransigence was Germanys policy, and therefore
given that Germany was driving Austria, there was no longer any point in mobilising
against Austria only

France reiterated her support for Russia, and there was significant cause to think that
Britain would also support Russia [47]

German mobilisation and war with Russia and France, 13 August

On 28 July, Germany learned through its spy network that Russia had implemented partial
mobilisation and its "Period Preparatory to War". The Germans assumed that Russia had, after
all, decided upon war and that her mobilisation put Germany in danger. This was doubly so
because German war plans, the so-called Schlieffen Plan, relied upon Germany to mobilise
speedily enough to defeat France first (by attacking largely through neutral Belgium) before
turning to defeat the slower-moving Russians.

Christopher Clarke states: "German efforts at mediation which suggested that Austria should
Halt in Belgrade and use the occupation of the Serbian capital to ensure its terms were met
were rendered futile by the speed of Russian preparations, which threatened to force the
Germans to take countermeasures before mediation could begin to take effect" [48]

Thus, in response to Russian mobilisation, Germany ordered the state of Imminent Danger of
War (SIDW) on 31 July, and when the Russian government refused to rescind its mobilisation
order, Germany mobilised and declared war on Russia on 1 August. Given the Franco-Russian
alliance, countermeasures by France were, correctly, assumed to be inevitable and Germany
therefore declared war on France on 3 August 1914.

Britain declares war on Germany, 4 August 1914

Following the German invasion of neutral Belgium, Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany on
2 August that she must withdraw or face war. The Germans did not comply and Britain declared
war on Germany on 4 August 1914.

Britain's reasons for declaring war were complex. The ostensible reason given was that Britain
was required to safeguard Belgium's neutrality under the Treaty of London 1839. The German
invasion of Belgium was, therefore, the casus belli and, importantly, legitimized and galvanized
popular support for the war.

Strategic risk posed by German control of the Belgian and ultimately French coast was
considered unacceptable. German guarantees of post-war behavior were cast into doubt by her
blas treatment of Belgian neutrality. However, the Treaty of London of 1839 had not committed
Britain on her own to safeguard Belgium's neutrality. Moreover, naval war planning
demonstrated that Britain herself would have violated Belgian neutrality by blockading her ports
(to prevent imported goods passing to Germany) in the event of war with Germany.
Rather Britain's relationship with her Entente partners, both France and Russia, were equally
significant factors. Edward Grey argued that the secret naval agreements with France (although
they had not been approved by the Cabinet) created a moral obligation vis a vis Britain and
France.[49]

What is more, in the event that Britain abandoned its Entente friends, it was feared that if
Germany won the war, or the Entente won without British support, then, either way, Britain
would be left without any friends. This would have left both Britain and her Empire vulnerable to
attack.[49]

British Foreign office mandarin Eyre Crowe stated:

"Should the war come, and England stand aside, one of two things must happen. (a) Either
Germany and Austria win, crush France and humiliate Russia. What will be the position of a
friendless England? (b) Or France and Russia win. What would be their attitude towards
England? What about India and the Mediterranean?" [49]

Domestically, the Liberal Cabinet was split and in the event that war was not declared the
Government would fall as Prime Minister Asquith, Edward Grey and Winston Churchill made it
clear they would resign. In that event, the existing Liberal Cabinet would lose their jobs. Since it
was likely the pro-war Conservatives would be elected to power this would lead to a slightly
belated British entry into the war in any event, so wavering Cabinet ministers were also likely
motivated by the desire to avoid senselessly splitting their party and sacrificing their jobs.[50]

Domestic political factors

German domestic politics

Left-wing parties, especially the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), made large gains in
the 1912 German election. German government at the time was still dominated by the Prussian
Junkers who feared the rise of these left-wing parties. Fritz Fischer famously argued that they
deliberately sought an external war to distract the population and whip up patriotic support for
the government.[51] Indeed, one German military leader[who?] said that a war was "desirable in
order to escape from difficulties at home and abroad"[52] and a Prussian conservative leader[who?]
even argued that "a war would strengthen patriarchal order".[53]

Other authors argue that German conservatives were ambivalent about a war, worrying that
losing a war would have disastrous consequences, and even a successful war might alienate the
population if it were lengthy or difficult.[7]

The drivers of Austro-Hungarian policy

The argument that Austro-Hungary was a moribund political entity, whose disappearance was
only a matter of time, was deployed by hostile contemporaries to suggest that the empire's efforts
to defend its integrity during the last years before the war were in some sense illegitimate.[54]
Clark states: "Evaluating the prospects of the Austo-Hungarian empire on the eve of the first
world war confronts us in an acute way with the problem of temporal perspective....The collapse
of the empire amid war and defeat in 1918 impressed itself upon the retrospective view of the
Hapsburg lands, overshadowing the scene with auguries of imminent and ineluctable decline."[55]

It is true that in Austro-Hungary, the political scene of the last decades before the war were
increasingly dominated by the struggle for national rights among the empire's eleven official
nationalities German, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Romanians,
Ruthenians, Poles and Italians. Yet before 1914, radical nationalists seeking full separation from
the empire were still in a small minority and the roots of Austro-Hungarys political turbulence
went less deep than appearances suggested.

In fact, during the pre-war decade the Hapsburg lands passed through a phase of strong economic
growth with a corresponding rise in general prosperity. Most inhabitants of the empire associated
the Hapsburg state with the benefits of orderly government, public education, welfare, sanitation,
the rule of law, and the maintenance of a sophisticated infrastructure.

Christopher Clark states: "Prosperous and relatively well administered, the empire, like its
elderly sovereign, exhibited a curious stability amid turmoil. Crises came and went without
appearing to threaten the existence of the system as such. The situation was always, as the
Viennese journalist Karl Kraus quipped, desperate but not serious."[56]

The drivers of Serbian Policy

The principal drivers of Serbian policy were to consolidate the Russian-backed expansion of
Serbia during the Balkan wars of 1912-13 and achieve dreams of a Greater Serbia, which
included unification of lands with large ethnic Serb populations inside the Austro-Hungarian
Empire, including Bosnia [57]

Overlaying this was culture of extreme nationalism, and a cult of assassination, derived from the
slaying of the Ottoman Sultan as the heroic epilogue to the otherwise disastrous Battle of Kosovo
on 28 June 1389. Clark states: The Greater Serbian vision was not just a question of
government policy, however, or even of propaganda. It was woven deeply into the culture and
identity of the Serbs.[57]

Serbian policy was complicated by the fact that the main actors in 1914 were both the official
Serb government led by Nikola Pai and the Black Hand terrorists led by the Head of Serb
Military Intelligence, known as Apis. The Black Hand believed that a Greater Serbia would be
achieved by provoking a war with Austro-Hungary through an act of terror which, with Russian
backing, would be won.

The official government position was to focus on consolidating the gains made during the Balkan
war, and avoid any further conflict, since recent wars had somewhat exhausted the Serb state.
Nevertheless, the official policy was muted by the political necessity of simultaneously and
clandestinely supporting dreams of a Greater Serb state in the long-term.[58] The Serb government
found it impossible to put and end to the machinations of the Black Hand for fear it would itself
be overthrown. Clark states: Serbian authorities were partly unwilling and partly unable to
suppress the irredentist activity that had given rise to the assassinations in the first place [59]

Russia, for its part, tended to support Serbian as a fellow Slav state and considered Serbia her
client. Russia also encouraged Serbia to focus its irredentism against Austro-Hungary because
it would discourage conflict between Serbia and Bulgaria (another prospective Russian ally) in
Macedonia.

Imperialism
See also: New Imperialism

The impact of Colonial rivalry and aggression on Europe in 1914

Imperial rivalry, and the consequences of the search for imperial security or for imperial
expansion, had important consequences for the origins of the First World War.

Imperial rivalries between France, Great Britain, Russia and Germany played an important part
in the creation of the Triple Entente and the relative isolation of Germany. Imperial opportunism,
in the form of the Italian attack on Ottoman Libyan provinces, also encouraged the Balkan wars
of 1912-13, which changed the balance of power in the Balkans to the detriment of Austro-
Hungary.

Some historians, such as Margaret MacMillan, believe that Germany created its own diplomatic
isolation in Europe in part through an aggressive and pointless imperial policy, known as
Weltpolitik. Others, such as Clark, believe that German isolation was the unintended
consequence of a dtente between Great Britain, France and Russia. This dtente was driven by
Britains desire for imperial security in relation to France in North Africa and in relation to
Russia in Persia and India.

Either way, this isolation is important for the causes of WW1 because it left Germany few
options but to ally herself more strongly with Austro-Hungary, leading ultimately to
unconditional support for Austrias punitive war on Serbia during the July crisis of 1914.

German isolation: Consequence of Weltpolitik?

Germany's Chancellor in the 1870s and 1880s Otto von Bismarck disliked the idea of an
overseas empire. Rather Bismarck supported French colonization in Africa because it diverted
government attention and resources away from continental Europe and revanchism post 1870.
Germany's "New Course" in foreign affairs, termed "Weltpolitik" ("world policy) was adopted
in the 1890s after Bismarck's dismissal.

The aim of Weltpolitik was ostensibly to transform Germany into a global power through
assertive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy.
Some historians, notably MacMillan and Hew Strachan, believe that a consequence of the policy
of Weltpolitik and the associated assertiveness was to isolate Germany.

Weltpolitik, particularly as expressed in Germanys objections to Frances growing influence in

Morroco in 1904 and 1907, also helped cement the Triple Entente. The Anglo-German Naval
race also isolated Germany by reinforcing Britains preference for agreements with Germanys
continental rivals, France and Russia.

German isolation: Consequence of The Triple Entente?

Historians, including Ferguson and Clark, believe that Germanys isolation was the unintended
consequences of the need for Britain to defend her Empire against threats from France and
Russia. They also downplay the impact of Weltpolitik and the Anglo-German naval race, which
ended in 1911.

Britain and France signed a series of agreement in 1904,which became known as the Entente
Cordiale. The most important feature of the agreement was that it granted freedom of action to
the UK in Egypt and to France in Morocco. Equally, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 is
the common name used for the Convention between the United Kingdom and Russia relating to
Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet. The convention brought shaky BritishRussian relations to the
forefront by solidifying boundaries that identified respective control in Persia, Afghanistan, and
Tibet.

The alignment between Great Britain, France and Russia became known as the Triple Entente.
Therefore, the Triple Entente was not conceived as a counterweight to the Triple Alliance, but
rather as a formula to secure imperial security between these three powers. The impact of the
Triple Entente was therefore twofold, to improve British relations with France and her ally
Russia and to demote the importance to Britain of good relations with Germany. Clark states it
was "not that antagonism toward Germany caused its isolation, but rather that the new system
itself channeled and intensified hostility towards the German Empire".

Imperial opportunism: Italy Ottomans

The Italo-Turkish War of 1911-12 was fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of
Italy in North Africa. The main significance for the First World War was that this war made it
clear that no Great Power appeared to wish to support the Ottoman Empire any longer and this
paved the way for the Balkan Wars.

Imperial opportunism France North Africa

The status of Morocco had been guaranteed by international agreement, and when France
attempted to greatly expand its influence there without the assent of all the other signatories
Germany opposed it prompting the Moroccan Crises, the Tangier Crisis of 1905 and the Agadir
Crisis of 1911. The intent of German policy was to drive a wedge between the British and
French, but in both cases produced the opposite effect and Germany was isolated diplomatically,
most notably lacking the support of Italy despite Italian membership in the Triple Alliance. The
French protectorate over Morocco was established officially in 1912.

In 1914, however, the African scene was peaceful. The continent was almost fully divided up by
the imperial powers (with only Liberia and Ethiopia still independent). There were no major
disputes there pitting any two European powers against each other.[60]

Marxist intepretation

Marxists typically attributed the start of the war to imperialism. "Imperialism," argued Lenin, "is
the monopoly stage of capitalism." He thought the monopoly capitalists went to war to control
markets and raw materials.

Social Darwinism
Social Darwinist theories influenced some of the key military and political leaders in the lead up
to WW1. These theories emphasized that struggle between nations and "races" was natural and
that only the fittest nation deserved to survive. Moreover some "races" such as Teutons and
Slaves were natural rivals, destined to clash. Senior German generals such as Helmuth von
Moltke talked in apocalyptic terms about the need for Germans to fight for their existence as a
people and culture. MacMillan states: "Reflecting the Social Darwinist theories of the era, many
Germans saw Slavs, as especially Russia as the natural opponent of the Teutonic races".[61] Social
Darwinism extended to Austria, where Conrad, Chief of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff
declared: "A people that lays down its weapons seals its fate." [61] In July 1914 the Austrian press
described Serbia and the South Slavs in terns which owed much to Social Darwinism.[61]

War was seen seen as natural and a viable or even useful instrument of policy. "War was
compared to a tonic for a sick patient or a life-saving operation to cut out diseased flesh" [61]
Since war was natural for some leaders it was simply a question of timing, and it would be
therefore better to have a war when the circumstances where most precipitous. I consider a war
inevitable", declared Moltke in 1912, "The sooner the better".[62]

Nationalism made war a competition between peoples, nations or races rather than kings and
elites.[63] Social Darwinism carried a sense of inevitability to conflict and downplayed the use of
diplomacy or international agreements to end warfare. It tended to glorify warfare, taking the
initiative and the warrior male role.[64]

Social Darwinism played an important role across Europe, but J. Leslie has argued that it played
a critical and immediate role in the strategic thinking of some important, hawkish members of
the Austro-Hungarian government.[65] Social Darwinism therefore normalised war as an
instrument of policy and justified its use.

However, there is some debate as to how widely these theories influenced German decision
makers. Wilhelm II never embraced the preventive war' or the 'inevitable war' thesis expounded
by Erich von Falkenhayn, Moltke and other militaries[66] Neither did the German leadership ever
concede decision making to its military leaders.[67]
Web of alliances

"The Chain of Friendship", an American cartoon from 1914 erroneously depicting the supposed
web of alliances, captioned, "If Austria attacks Serbia, Russia will fall upon Austria, Germany
upon Russia, and France and England upon Germany." This dimension developed into the
concept of Chain ganging.

General narratives of the war tend to emphasis the importance of Alliances in binding the major
powers to act in the event of a crisis such as the July crisis. Historians such as Margaret
MacMillan warn against the argument that alliances forced the great powers to act as they did
during the July crisis. MacMillan states: "What we tend to think of as fixed alliances before the
First World War were nothing of the sort. They were much more loose, much more porous, much
more capable of change."[68]

The most important alliances in Europe required participants to agree to collective defense if
attacked. Some of these represented formal alliances while the Triple Entente represented only a
frame of mind. These included:

German-Austrian treaty (1879) or Dual Alliance

The Franco-Russian Alliance (1894)

The addition of Italy to the Germany and Austrian alliance in 1882, forming the "Triple
Alliance".

Treaty of London, 1839, guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium

There are three notable exceptions which demonstrate that alliances did not in themselves force
the great powers to act:

The "Entente Cordiale" between Britain and France in 1905 included a secret agreement
which left the northern coast of France and the Channel to be defended by the British
navy only, and the separate "entente" between Britain and Russia (1907) that formed the
so-called Triple Entente. However, the Triple Entente between Russia, France and the
 United Kingdom did not in fact force the United Kingdom to mobilize because it was not
a military treaty.

Moreover, general narratives of the war regularly misstate that Russia was allied to
Serbia. Clive Ponting noted: "Russia had no treaty of alliance with Serbia and was under
no obligation to support it diplomatically, let alone go to its defence".[69]

Italy, despite being part of the Triple Alliance did not enter the war in defence of its
alliance partners

Arms race
By the 1870s or 1880s all the major powers were preparing for a large-scale war, although none
expected one. Britain focused on building up its Royal Navy, already stronger than the next two
navies combined. Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Russia, and some smaller countries, set up
conscription systems whereby young men would serve from 1 to three years in the army, then
spend the next 20 years or so in the reserves with annual summer training. Men from higher
social statuses became officers. Each country devised a mobilisation system whereby the
reserves could be called up quickly and sent to key points by rail. Every year the plans were
updated and expanded in terms of complexity. Each country stockpiled arms and supplies for an
army that ran into the millions. Germany in 1874 had a regular professional army of 420,000
with an additional 1.3 million reserves. By 1897 the regular army was 545,000 strong and the
reserves 3.4 million. The French in 1897 had 3.4 million reservists, Austria 2.6 million, and
Russia 4.0 million. The various national war plans had been perfected by 1914, albeit with
Russia and Austria trailing in effectiveness. Recent wars (since 1865) had typically been short
a matter of months. All the war plans called for a decisive opening and assumed victory would
come after a short war; no one planned for or was ready for the food and munitions needs of a
long stalemate as actually happened in 191418.[70][71]

As David Stevenson has put it, "A self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness ...
was an essential element in the conjuncture that led to disaster ... The armaments race ... was a
necessary precondition for the outbreak of hostilities." David Herrmann goes further, arguing
that the fear that "windows of opportunity for victorious wars" were closing, "the arms race did
precipitate the First World War." If Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated in 1904 or
even in 1911, Herrmann speculates, there might have been no war. It was "... the armaments
race ... and the speculation about imminent or preventive wars" that made his death in 1914 the
trigger for war.[72]

One of the aims of the First Hague Conference of 1899, held at the suggestion of Tsar Nicholas
II, was to discuss disarmament. The Second Hague Conference was held in 1907. All the
signatories except for Germany supported disarmament. Germany also did not want to agree to
binding arbitration and mediation. The Kaiser was concerned that the United States would
propose disarmament measures, which he opposed. All parties tried to revise international law to
their own advantage.[73]
Anglo-German naval race

Main article: AngloGerman naval arms race

1909 cartoon in Puck shows (clockwise) US, Germany, Britain, France and Japan engaged in
naval race in a "no limit" game.

Historians have debated the role of the German naval build-up as the principal cause of
deteriorating Anglo-German relations. In any case Germany never came close to catching up
with Britain.

Supported by Wilhelm II's enthusiasm for an expanded German navy, Grand Admiral Alfred von
Tirpitz championed four Fleet Acts from 1898 to 1912, and, from 1902 to 1910, the Royal Navy
embarked on its own massive expansion to keep ahead of the Germans. This competition came to
focus on the revolutionary new ships based on the Dreadnought, which was launched in 1906,
and which gave Britain a battleship that far outclassed any other in Europe.[74][75]

The naval strength of the powers in 1914

Large Naval Vessels
Country Personnel Tonnage
(Dreadnoughts)
Russia 54,000 4 328,000
France 68,000 10 731,000
Britain 209,000 29 2,205,000
TOTAL 331,000 43 3,264,000
Germany 79,000 17 1,019,000
Austria-Hungary 16,000 4 249,000
TOTAL 95,000 21 1,268,000
(Source: [76])

The overwhelming British response proved to Germany that its efforts were unlikely to equal the
Royal Navy. In 1900, the British had a 3.7:1 tonnage advantage over Germany; in 1910 the ratio
was 2.3:1 and in 1914, 2.1:1. Ferguson argues that, "So decisive was the British victory in the
naval arms race that it is hard to regard it as in any meaningful sense a cause of the First World
War."[77] This ignores the fact that the Kaiserliche Marine had narrowed the gap by nearly half,
and that the Royal Navy had long intended to be stronger than any two potential opponents; the
United States Navy was in a period of growth, making the German gains very ominous.

In Britain in 1913, there was intense internal debate about new ships due to the growing
influence of John Fisher's ideas and increasing financial constraints. In early-mid-1914 Germany
adopted a policy of building submarines instead of new dreadnoughts and destroyers, effectively
abandoning the race, but kept this new policy secret to delay other powers following suit.[78]

The Germans abandoned the naval race before the war broke out. The extent to which the naval
race was one of the chief factors in Britain's decision to join the Triple Entente remains a key
controversy. Historians such as Christopher Clark believe it was not significant, with Margaret
Moran taking the opposite view.

Russian interests in Balkans and Ottoman Empire

The main Russian goals included strengthening its role as the protector of Eastern Christians in
the Balkans (such as the Serbians).[79] Although Russia enjoyed a booming economy, growing
population, and large armed forces, its strategic position was threatened by an expanding Turkish
military trained by German experts using the latest technology. The start of the war renewed
attention of old goals: expelling the Turks from Constantinople, extending Russian dominion into
eastern Anatolia and Persian Azerbaijan, and annexing Galicia. These conquests would assure
Russian predominance in the Black Sea and access to the Mediterranean.[80]

Technical and military factors

The 'Short war illusion'

Traditional narratives of the war suggested that when the war began both sides believed that the
war would end quickly. Rhetorically speaking there was an expectation that the war would be
Over by Christmas 1914. This is important for the origins of the conflict since it suggests that,
given the expectation was that war would be short, the statesmen did not tend to take gravity of
military action as seriously as they might have done.

However, modern historiography suggests a more nuanced approach. There is ample evidence to
suggest that statesmen and military leaders thought the war would be lengthy, terrible and have
profound political consequences.
While it is true all military leaders planned for a swift victory, many military and civilian leaders
recognized that the war may be long and highly destructive. The principal German and French
military leaders, including Moltke and Ludendorff and his French counterpart Joseph Joffre,
expected a long war.[81] The British Secretary of State for War Lord Kitchener expected a long
war: "three years" or longer, he told an amazed colleague.

Moltke hoped that a European war, if it broke out, would be resolved swiftly, but he also
conceded that it might drag on for years, wreaking immeasurable ruin. Asquith wrote of the
approach of Armageddon and French and Russian generals spoke of a war of extermination
and the end of civilization. Foreign Secretary Grey famously stated just hours before Britain
declared war: "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our
life-time.

Nevertheless, Clark concludes that "In the minds of many statesmen, the hope for a short war
and the fear of a long one seemed to have cancelled each other out, holding at bay a fuller
appreciation of the risks."[82]

Primacy of the offensive and war by timetable

See also: Cult of the offensive

Military commanders of the time, including Moltke, Joffre and Conrad, held that seizing the
offensive was extremely important. This theory encouraged all belligerents to devise war plans to
strike first to gain the advantage. These war plans all included complex plans for mobilisation of
the armed forces, either as a prelude to war or as a deterrent. In the case of the continental Great
Powers the mobilisation plans included arming and transporting millions of men and their
equipment, typically by rail and to strict schedules- hence the metaphor "War by Timetable".

These mobilisation plans shortened the window for diplomacy as military planners wanted to
begin mobilization as quickly as possible to avoid being caught on the defensive. They also put
pressure on policymakers to begin their own mobilisation once it was discovered that other
nations had begun to mobilise.

Some historians assert that mobilization schedules were so rigid that once it was begun, they
could not be cancelled without massive disruption of the country and military disorganization
and so diplomatic overtures conducted after the mobilizations had begun were ignored.[83]

For example, Russia ordered partial mobilisation on 25 July. The policy was intended to be a
mobilisation against Austria-Hungary only. However, due to a lack of pre-war planning for this
type of partial mobilisation, the Russians realised by 29 July that partial mobilisation was not
militarily possible, and as it would interfere with a general mobilisation, only full mobilisation
could prevent the entire operation being botched. The Russians were therefore faced with only
two options, to cancel mobilisation during a crisis or to move to full mobilisation, which they did
on 30 July. This full mobilisation meant mobilising along both the Russian border with Austro-
Hungary and the border with Germany.
For their part the German war plans, the so-called Schlieffen plan, assumed a two-front war
against France and Russia. They were predicated on massing the bulk of the German army
against France, and taking the offensive in the West, while a holding force held East Prussia. The
plans were based on the assumption that France would mobilise significantly quicker than
Russia. Hence German forces could be deployed in the West to defeat France before turning to
face the slow-moving Russians in the East.

On 28 July, Germany learned through its spy network that Russia had implemented partial
mobilisation and its "Period Preparatory to War". The Germans assumed that Russia had, after
all, decided upon war and that her mobilisation put Germany in danger. This was doubly so
because German war plans, the so-called Schlieffen Plan, relied upon Germany to mobilise
speedily enough to defeat France first (by attacking largely through neutral Belgium) before
turning to defeat the slower-moving Russians.

Christopher Clarke states: "German efforts at mediation which suggested that Austria should
Halt in Belgrade and use the occupation of the Serbian capital to ensure its terms were met
were rendered futile by the speed of Russian preparations, which threatened to force the
Germans to take countermeasures before mediation could begin to take effect". .[46]
Furthermore, Clarke states: "The Germans declared war on Russia before the Russians declared
war on Germany. But by the time that happened, the Russian government had been moving
troops and equipment to the German front for a week. The Russians were the first great power to
issue an order of general mobilisation and the first Russo-German clash took place on German,
not on Russian soil, following the Russian invasion of East Prussia. That doesnt mean that the
Russians should be blamed for the outbreak of war. Rather it alerts us to the complexity of the
events that brought war about and the limitations of any thesis that focuses on the culpability of
one actor."[84]

Historiography
Main article: Historiography of the Causes of World War I

Louis P. Bnzet's map of "Europe As It Should Be" (1918), depicting imagined nations based on
ethnic and linguistic criteria. Bnzet's book The World War and What was Behind It (1918)
blamed on German aggression combined with perceived threats to the traditional social order
from radicals and ethnic nationalists.

During the period immediately following the end of hostilities, Anglo-American historians
argued that Germany was solely responsible for the start of the war. However, academic work in
the English-speaking world in the later 1920s and 1930s blamed participants more equally.
Since the 1960s, the tendency has been to reassert the guilt of Germany, although some
historians continue to argue for collective responsibility.

Discussion over which country "started" the war, and who bears the blame, continues to this day.
[85]

See also
World War I portal

American entry into World War I

Causes of World War II

Diplomatic history of World War I

History of the Balkans

International relations (18141919)

Notes
Citations
1.

Van Evera, Stephen (Summer 1984). "The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First
World War". International Security. 9 (1): 62. doi:10.2307/2538636. JSTOR 2538636.
Fischer, Fritz (1975). War of illusions: German policies from 1911 to 1914. Chatto and
Windus. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-3930-5480-4.
Sagan, Scott D. (Fall 1986). "1914 Revisited: Allies, Offense, and Instability".
International Security. 11 (2): 151175. doi:10.2307/2538961. JSTOR 2538961.
Henig, Ruth (2006). The Origins of the First World War. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-
85200-0.
Lieven, D. C. B. (1983). Russia and the Origins of the First World War. St. Martin's
Press. ISBN 978-0-312-69611-5.
Strachan, Hew (2005). The First World War. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-
101-15341-3.
Ferguson (1999).
Clark (2013), p. 324.
Ferguson (1999), p. 53.
Clark (2013), p. 159.
 Hamilton, K.A. (1977). "Great Britain and France, 19111914". In Hinsley, F.H. British
Foreign Policy Under Sir Edward Grey. Cambridge University Press. p. 324. ISBN 978-0-521-
21347-9.
Clark (2013), p. 157.
Clark (2013), p. 242.
Williamson (1991), pp. 125140.
Williamson (1991), pp. 143-145.
Williamson (1991), pp. 147-149.
Williamson (1991), pp. 151-154.
Wohlforth, William C. (April 1987). "The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914
Balance" (PDF). World Politics. Cambridge University Press. 39 (3): 353381.
doi:10.2307/2010224. JSTOR 2010224.
Clark, Christopher (17 April 2014). Europe: Then and Now. Center for Strategic and
International Studies l. 26-27 minutes in via YouTube.
Martin, Connor (2017). Bang! Europe At War. United Kingdom. p. 23. ISBN 978-
1366291004.
H E Legge, How War Came About Between Great Britain and Germany[full citation needed]
Ponting (2002), p. 124.
July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin
Albertini (1952), pp. 461462, 465, Vol II.
The Origins of the First World War by James Joll
The Willy Nicky Telegrams
"The Treaty of Alliance Between Germany and Turkey 2 August 1914". Avalon Project.
Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School. 2008.
Taylor, A.J.P. (1954). The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918. Oxford University
Press. p. 524. ISBN 978-0-19-822101-2.
Clark, Christopher (25 June 2014). Month of Madness. BBC Radio 4.
Sked, Alan (1989). The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire: 1815 - 1918. Addison-
Wesley Longman. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-582-02530-1.
Williamson (1991).
Clark (2013), pp. 402-403.
Ponting (2002), p. 72.
Martin, Connor (2017). Bang! Europe At War. United Kingdom. p. 27. ISBN 978-
1366291004.
Ponting (2002), p. 70.
Ponting (2002), p. 73.
Ponting (2002), p. 74.
Clark (2013), pp. 449450.
Konrad Jarausch, "The Illusion of Limited War: Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg's
Calculated Risk," Central European History 2#1 (1969), pp. 48-76 at p. 65.
James D. Fearon, "Rationalist explanations for war." International organization 49#3
(1995): 379-414 at pp 397-98. online
Clark (2013), p. 486.
Clark (2013), p. 475.
Clark (2013), p. 480.
Clark (2013), p. 463.
 Clark (2013), p. 466.
Clark (2013), p. 509.
Clark (2013), pp. 510-511.
Clark (2013), p. 525.
Clark (2013), p. 544.
Clark (2013), p. 545.
Fischer, Fritz (1967). Germany's Aims in the First World War. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-
0-393-09798-6.
Hull, Isabel V. (2004). The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1888-1918. Cambridge
University Press. p. 259. ISBN 978-0-521-53321-8.
Neiberg, Michael S. (2007). The World War I Reader. NYU Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-
8147-5833-5.
Clark (2013), p. 68.
Clark (2013), pp. 77-78.
Clark (2013), p. 77.
Clark, Christopher (2013). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-219922-5., p.22
Clark, Christopher (2013). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-219922-5., p.26
Clark, Christopher (2013). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-219922-5., p.559
Mowat, C. L., ed. (1968). The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 12, The Shifting
Balance of World Forces, 1898-1945. Cambridge University Press. pp. 151152. ISBN 978-0-
521-04551-3.
MacMillan, Margaret (2013). The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. Random
House. ISBN 978-0-8129-9470-4. p524
MacMillan, Margaret (2013). The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. Random
House. ISBN 978-0-8129-9470-4. p479
Weikart, Richard (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and
Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan US. ISBN 978-1-4039-6502-8.[page needed]
Hamilton, Richard F.; Herwig, Holger H. (2003). The Origins of World War I.
Cambridge University Press. p. 26. ISBN 9780521817356.
Leslie, John (1993). "The Antecedents of Austria-Hungary's War Aims: Policies and
Policymakers in Vienna and Budapest before and during 1914". In Springer, Elibabeth;
Kammerhofer, Leopold. Archiv und Forschung das Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Archiv in Seiner
Bedeutung fr die Geschichte sterreichs und Europas [Archive and research the Household,
Court and State Archives in its importance for the history of Austria and Europe] (in German).
Munich, Germany: Verlag fr Geschichte und Politik. pp. 307394.
Christopher Clark, Kaiser Wilhelm II ISBN 978-0-141-03993-0 Penguin, 2009, p 303
Christopher Clark, Kaiser Wilhelm II ISBN 978-0-141-03993-0 Penguin, 2009, p 301
Explaining the Outbreak of the First World War - Closing Conference Genve Histoire et
Cit 2015; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDJfraJWf0 See13:50
Ponting (2002), p. 122.
Hinsley, F. H., ed. (1962). The New Cambridge Modern History: Material progress and
world-wide problems, 1870-1898. University Press. pp. 204242.
Mulligan (2014), pp. 643649.
 Ferguson (1999), p. 82.
Mulligan (2014), pp. 646647.
Ross, Angus (April 2010). "HMS Dreadnought (1906) A Naval Revolution
Misinterpreted or Mishandled?" (PDF). Northern Mariner. XX (2): 175198.
Blyth, Robert J.; Lambert, Andrew; Rger, Jan, eds. (2011). The Dreadnought and the
Edwardian Age. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6315-7.
Ferguson (1999), p. 85.
Ferguson (1999), pp. 83-85.
Lambert, Nicholas A. (September 1995). "British Naval Policy, 19131914: Financial
Limitation and Strategic Revolution". The Journal of Modern History. 67 (3): 623626.
JSTOR 2124221. (Subscription required (help)).
Jelavich, Barbara (2004). Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914. Cambridge
University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-521-52250-2.
McMeekin, Sean (2011). The Russian Origins of the First World War. Harvard University
Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-674-06320-4.
Ferguson (1999), p. 97.
Clark (2013), p. 562.
Taylor, A.J.P. (1969). War by Time-table: How the First World War Began. Macdonald &
Co.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n16/christopher-clark/the-first-calamity

1. "World War One: 10 interpretations of who started WW1". BBC News. 12

February 2014.

References
Albertini, Luigi (1952). The Origins of the War of 1914. Translated by Massey, Isabella
M. Oxford University Press. OCLC 168712.

Clark, Christopher (2013). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.
HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-219922-5.

Ferguson, Niall (1999). The Pity of War. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-05712-2.

Fromkin, David (2004). Europe's last summer: who started the Great War in 1914?.
Knopf.

Holmes, T. M. (April 2014). "Absolute Numbers: The Schlieffen Plan as a Critique of

German Strategy in 1914". War in History. Sage. 21 (2).
doi:10.1177/0968344513505499. ISSN 0968-3445.

Jastrow, Morris (1917). The War And The Bagdad Rail Way. J.B. Lippincott Company.

Kennedy, Paul M. (1980). The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914.

Humanity Books. ISBN 978-1-57392-301-9.
 Mulligan, William (2014). "The Trial Continues: New Directions in the Study of the
Origins of the First World War". The English Historical Review. 129 (538): 639666.
doi:10.1093/ehr/ceu139.

Ponting, Clive (2002). Thirteen Days: The Road to the First World War. Chatto &
Windus. ISBN 978-0-7011-7293-0.

Williamson, Samuel R. (1991). Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War.
St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-05283-6.

Zuber, Terence (2011). The Real German War Plan, 1904-14. History Press. ISBN 978-0-
7524-5664-5.