IB History WW1 Europe: Causes of War Notes

Key Questions

1. What were the long term and short term causes of World War One in Europe?
2. How can these be categorized into economic, political, ideological, and territorial causes?

Long Term Causes

1. Militarism

The Belief in Deterrence and the Risk of Pre-emption

1. By the early 20th century, European powers had built the largest armies in history.
2. Many statesmen (though not always generals) believed that such massive forces would prevent war through deterrence.
3. The logic of deterrence: a larger military would discourage enemy aggression.
4. However, deterrence failed because:
   1. Armies were still growing, creating fear of being overtaken by rivals.
   2. This fostered a “pre-emptive war” mentality: if your enemy’s army was growing faster, you might feel pressured to strike first before the gap widened.
   3. This dynamic created a dangerous incentive to “use your army before you lose it.”

Size of Armies and Conscription Policies

1. In 1914, Europe had around 200 army divisions, including reserves.
2. Armies were filled via compulsory military service (conscription):
   1. Most European countries required 2–6 years of military service.
   2. Britain was the exception, relying on volunteers until introducing conscription in 1916.
   3. France introduced the Three Year Law (1913), extending conscription from 2 to 3 years.
3. Russia had the largest army in the world:
   1. 1.3 million men in its standing army.
   2. Theoretically could call up 5 million more reservists.

The Illusion of Russian Military Power

1. Despite impressive numbers, Russia’s military power was misleading:
   1. Poor infrastructure, vast distances, and inefficient organization limited effectiveness.
   2. In reality, Russia could only reliably mobilize about 20% of its able-bodied conscripts.
2. This discrepancy created a double-edged sword:
   1. Rival states, unaware of Russia’s internal weaknesses, saw her as an intimidating military giant.
   2. Russian generals, aware of their logistical problems, believed that they had to mobilize before any enemy could, to avoid being outmaneuvered.
3. This fear of delay contributed directly to the mobilization crisis in July 1914.

Technological Developments in Warfare

1. The early 20th century saw massive growth in the lethality and scale of weaponry due to industrialization.
2. Artillery:
   1. Armament manufacturers like Krupp (Germany) and Skoda (Austria-Hungary) produced heavy artillery capable of firing 1-ton explosive shells up to 10 miles (16 km).
3. Machine Guns:
   1. Had a theoretical rate of fire of 400–600 rounds per minute.
   2. Each gun was effectively the firepower equivalent of 80 rifles.
4. These technological developments made warfare more mechanized, destructive, and less reliant on traditional tactics.

The Anglo-German Naval Race

1. One of the clearest examples of militarism before WWI.
2. In 1906, Britain launched the HMS Dreadnought:
   1. A revolutionary battleship design that rendered all previous battleships obsolete.
3. To keep up, all navies had to build Dreadnought-class ships after 1906.
4. Germany, under the Second Naval Law (1900), aimed to challenge Britain’s naval supremacy.
   1. Sparked a competitive arms race between the two powers.
5. Between 1900 and 1914, the combined size of the British and German navies increased by 197%.
   1. This created enormous suspicion and anxiety on both sides.

The Broader Effects of Militarism

1. Large and growing militaries did not directly cause WWI, but they contributed significantly to:
   1. Suspicion and fear between states.
   2. The pressure to mobilize quickly and act decisively.
2. When combined with:
   1. Economic rivalries,
   2. Imperial tensions, and
   3. Rising nationalism
3. Militarism amplified the likelihood of a major and highly destructive war.

2. Industrialization

1. By 1900, some historians argued that economic power directly translated into military strength.
2. Others suggest that the definition of a Great Power was more complex, involving more than just industrial output.
3. What is not disputed is the massive growth in industrial production during the second half of the 19th century.
4. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England, had by 1870 spread throughout Europe and the United States.
5. By 1914, Europe was significantly more industrialized than in 1880.

Industrialization and the Nature of War

1. Industrialization did not directly cause war, but it had important consequences that made conflict more likely:
   1. It laid the foundations for "total war", where entire societies and economies were mobilized for conflict.
   2. It enabled mass production of weapons, ammunition, and other military resources.

Economic Rivalries and Disparities

1. Industrial growth was uneven among powers, creating tension:
   1. USA: Iron and steel output increased by 242% (1890–1913).
   2. Germany: Steel production grew by 329% in the same period.
   3. Britain: Saw a decline in steel output, causing concern over Germany’s rapid industrial rise.
   4. France: Trailed behind all major powers except Austria-Hungary.
2. These disparities led to economic competition, feeding into diplomatic rivalries and political tension.

Need for Raw Materials and Colonial Competition

1. Industrial economies required constant supplies of raw materials and expanding markets.
2. This demand created a neo-mercantilist mindset, encouraging nations to secure colonies.
3. The Scramble for Africa had largely exhausted available colonial territories by 1900.
4. With few new lands to claim, powers began to compete over existing colonies, increasing the risk of confrontation.

Industrialization and Naval Buildup

1. The expansion of trade led to greater demand for naval power to protect economic interests:
   1. By 1913, Germany’s exports matched Britain's, showing a shift in economic dominance.
   2. In the U.S. market, Germany outsold Britain significantly.
2. To defend and expand this trade, Germany sought to build a modern, powerful navy, which:
   1. Fueled the Anglo-German naval arms race.
   2. Added to militaristic and imperial tensions.

Industrial Capacity and War Production

1. Once WWI began, the powers were able to rapidly mobilize their industrial capacities for warfare:
   1. France (1914): Produced 200,000 artillery shells per day.
   2. Russia (1916): Manufactured 4.5 million artillery shells, a tenfold increase from the previous year.
2. Industrial output thus sustained the scale and intensity of modern war.

Link Between Economic and Military Rivalry

1. Economic competition naturally fed into military rivalry:
   1. Industrialization gave countries both the means and the motivation to expand militarily.
   2. The race for resources, markets, and industrial dominance was closely tied to national security and geopolitical standing.
2. This intensified strategic calculations, making major war more likely and more devastating.

3. Alliance System

1. Europe in 1914 was divided into two rival alliance blocs
2. These alliances were reinforced by numerous secondary treaties, both public and secret, extending influence globally.

Bismarck’s Strategy of Deterrence (1871–1890)

1. Following German unification (1871), Chancellor Bismarck aimed to prevent war through strategic alliances:
   1. Dual Alliance (1879): Germany and Austria-Hungary pledged mutual support in case of conflict with two or more powers.
   2. Triple Alliance: Italy joined in 1882, creating a three-way commitment.
   3. Reinsurance Treaty (1887) with Russia ensured neutrality if either was attacked.
2. Bismarck’s network was crafted to isolate France strategically and maintain peace via balance.

Collapse and Realignment

1. After Bismarck’s dismissal (1890), Germany under new leadership chose not to renew the Reinsurance Treaty, isolating Russia.
2. In response, France cultivated ties with Russia:
   1. By 1894, the Franco–Russian Alliance was formed, with mutual defense commitments:
      1. Each would support the other if attacked by Germany or its allies.
3. These shifts turned alliance lines rigid and cohesive, leading to two opposing blocs.

Britain’s Flexible Diplomacy

1. Traditionally favoring “splendid isolation,” Britain avoided permanent military alliances in Europe.
2. Rising tensions and competition prompted a gradual alignment:
   1. Entente Cordiale (1904) with France settled colonial disputes but did not include military obligations.
   2. By 1907, Britain also eased tensions with Russia, creating the Triple Entente, less binding but significant in power balance.
3. Britain’s informal commitments held major implications:
   1. Its dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) automatically joined any war Britain entered.
   2. Since 1839, Britain had guaranteed Belgian neutrality, committing itself to intervention if that neutrality was violated.

Entangling Commitments Elsewhere

1. Other European powers added layers of complication:
   1. Japans's alliance with Britain added Asia into the web of mutual expectations.
   2. Russia’s ties to Serbia and interests in the Balkans drew it into regional conflicts, foreshadowing WWI escalation.
2. These overlapping treaties and understandings helped solidify a system that made any local crisis prone to rapid international escalation.

Consequences of Interlocking Alliances

1. The alliance system:
   1. Heightened suspicion and military readiness among European powers.
   2. Ensured that conflicts risked expanding into general war due to formal or informal obligations.
2. While alliances did not directly cause the war, they made it far more likely and broader in scope.
3. Maintaining such a complex system demanded diplomatic skill, or what historians Palmer and Colton call "the most Olympian of statesmanship" a capacity that faltered in the summer of 1914.

4. Imperialism and nationalism

1. Nationalism stems from the idea that a nation is essentially its people, while imperialism often fuels nationalist resentment among the dominated.European imperial competition intensified in the late 19th century, particularly through the “Scramble for Africa”.
   1. Until around 1850, European engagement in Africa was primarily coastal.
   2. Explorers like Henry Stanley ignited interest in Africa’s interior by revealing its enormous economic potential.
2. In 1885, Otto von Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference to set rules for European colonization in Africa, aiming to prevent colonial disputes from triggering a European war.

Germany’s Growing International Ambitions

1. Bismarck, focusing on internal consolidation, sought to shield Germany from imperial conflict.
2. After his dismissal in 1890, Kaiser Wilhelm II pursued Germany’s “place in the sun” with aggressive Weltpolitik (world policy).
3. Key flashpoints:
   1. Morocco Crisis (1905): Wilhelm’s challenge to French claims in Morocco reinforced the Anglo-French Entente.
   2. Agadir Crisis (1911): Further German pressure on French control in Morocco prompted renewed apprehension toward Germany in Europe.

Nationalism in the Balkans

1. The Balkans were a cauldron of ethnic nationalism, primarily among Slavic peoples such as those in Serbia.
2. With the Ottoman Empire in decline and Austria-Hungary seeking influence, nationalism and instability increased sharply.
3. Key developments:
   1. Pan-Slavic nationalism surged, especially in Serbia, which envisioned leading a Greater Serbia or Yugoslavia.
   2. Balkan Wars:
      1. First Balkan War (1912): Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece attacked Ottoman territories; Bulgaria gained the most.
      2. Second Balkan War (1913): Serbia defeated Bulgaria over territorial disputes. Efforts to control Albania were blocked by Austria-Hungary and international intervention.
4. The net result:
   1. Austria-Hungary remained hostile to pan-Slavic ambitions.
   2. Serbia continued pursuing expansion.
   3. Russia, humiliated by prior setbacks, sought renewed influence and prevention of Austria-Hungary’s domination.

How These Forces Intertwined

1. Expanded militaries were backed by industrialization, enabled by imperial resources.
2. Imperialist expansion angered nations like Germany and Austria-Hungary, while alarming established powers and subject peoples.
3. Nationalism and imperialism combined to breed suspicion, competition, and regional instability, especially in the Balkans, creating tinder for a major conflict.

Short-term Causes

1. The July Crisis

Assassination in Sarajevo (28 June 1914)

1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Black Hand, a Bosnian-Serb nationalist group.
2. This was not an unprecedented event, Ferdinand was one of eight assassinated heads of state between 1881–1914.
3. The assassination did not directly cause World War I—it was the failure to manage the diplomatic fallout against a backdrop of long-term tensions that triggered war.

Austria-Hungary’s Response

1. Certain members of the Serbian military had connections to the Black Hand, but the Serbian government was not directly complicit.
2. Key Austrian leaders:
   1. Conrad von Hötzendorf (Chief of General Staff)
   2. Leopold von Berchtold (Chancellor)
   3. Both saw the assassination as an opportunity to crush Serbian and South Slav nationalism, even if it meant war with Serbia.

The “Blank Cheque” and Ultimatum

1. Germany gave Austria-Hungary a “Blank Cheque”, a promise of unconditional support, encouraging a hardline response.
2. Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia on 23 July 1914.
   1. The demands were intentionally harsh, undermining Serbian sovereignty (e.g., allowing Austrian officials to operate within Serbia).
3. Serbia accepted most of the demands, but Austria declared war on Serbia anyway on 28 July 1914.

2. Russian Mobilisation

1. Russia viewed Austria’s mobilization as a threat to Slavic interests and her strategic position in the Balkans.
2. With memories of humiliation in Bosnia (1908) and Albania (1913) still fresh, Russia began partial mobilisation on 29 July.
3. Russian War Minister Vladimir Sukhomlinov urged full mobilisation, which Tsar Nicholas II approved.

3. German Mobilisation and the Schlieffen Plan

1. Germany saw Russian mobilisation as an act of war and began its own full mobilisation.
2. Under the Schlieffen Plan, German mobilisation was inherently offensive and involved invading France via Belgium, a violation of Belgian neutrality.

4. Britain’s Entry into the War

1. Britain remained diplomatically ambiguous, hoping to maintain peace but not ruling out intervention.
2. British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey left Germany uncertain about Britain’s position.
3. When Germany invaded Belgium on 3 August 1914, Britain honoured its treaty obligations to defend Belgian neutrality and declared war on Germany on 4 August.
4. This brought the British Empire and many global colonies into the war, transforming a European conflict into a world war.

5. Summary: Why the Crisis Escalated

1. The assassination was a trigger, not a cause.
2. Aggressive diplomacy, alliance commitments, military plans, and nationalist ambitions created a situation where war became inevitable once events were set in motion.
3. A lack of flexibility, diplomatic miscommunication, and overconfidence in military solutions ensured a continental conflict exploded into a global war.

Plans for war

1. Mobilization and “War by Timetable”

1. The opening days of WWI were called “war by timetable” because mobilizing millions of soldiers required precise coordination.
2. Railroads were crucial for rapid troop movements.
3. By the 1880s, Germany had taken full control of its railroad system to support fast mobilization.
4. All major European powers faced the challenge of moving huge armies quickly to their frontiers to execute complex war plans.

2. The Schlieffen Plan (Germany)

1. Created by Alfred von Schlieffen, German Chief of General Staff (1891–1905).
2. Purpose: To avoid a dangerous two-front war against France (west) and Russia (east).
3. Key idea:
   1. Concentrate seven German armies in the west.
   2. Sweep through Luxembourg and Belgium into northern France.
   3. Capture Paris within 41 days of mobilization.
4. Meanwhile, the eastern front would be held by Austro-Hungarian forces and Russia’s slower mobilization.
5. The plan depended on Germany mobilizing first. If Russia mobilized, Germany had to strike France immediately.
6. This plan was a direct cause of the war because it forced Germany’s hand to start war quickly once Russia mobilized.

3. France’s Plan XVII

1. The French plan focused on concentrating forces on the eastern frontier (near Germany).
2. French armies would then launch a gallant offensive eastward to reclaim Alsace and Lorraine, territories lost in 1871.
3. Unlike the German plan, it was based more on “élan vital” (fighting spirit) and offensive spirit than on strict timetables.
4. The French offensive and Russian mobilization helped trigger a wider allied military response, including British involvement.

4. Contrasting Approaches

1. Schlieffen Plan: Highly detailed, reliant on timing, fast and massive encirclement.
2. Plan XVII: More about morale, bold attacks, and reclaiming lost lands.
3. These plans set the stage for the rapid escalation and widespread fighting in the early days of WWI.