However, what was the actual reason for the start of World War I? Each country has come up with its own answer as it deems fit. Nevertheless, such a question can never be fully answered due to the simple fact that we were not there at the time. Perhaps we can make assumptions, still, it was in the past, were the mind set was different, were each country thought for itself. Often the main factors for the war are considered to be imperialism, militarism and alliances; however it is clear that all three factors sprung forth from one main cause: nationalism. With the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the final spark was added to cause nationalism to overflow. Through the strong tensions between the countries, along with hastily pledged alliances, no one could have kept the situation not to escalate, since all of Europe was in the same boat. War had become inevitable.
Nationalism is often closely linked to militarism and thus it is clear that one caused the other. For the people, the military embodied the muscles of a nation, thus the bigger, the greater the pride. With the development of Industrialization, each country began to stock up with soldiers and strategic plans. It was a deadly cycle, were one country pulled the others along.
First off, it is clear that this race of stocking up the army better then the other country could not have happened without Industrialization. Countries needed their steel industries in order to outshine the other. Thus in a way, without the actual development of working with steel and burning coal, countries never could have created murder weapons in such mass quantity.
However, Germany with its fast growing steel industry wanted a greater, better navy in order to compete with England. Thus it passed the German Naval Law of 1900. This was a plan for stocking up on boats over several years, which cast a clear signal to other countries: we are ready to compete with you. While this is a military act, it was motivated clearly by nationalism, to show others the greatness of Germany.
Still as much as Germany tried, it never rose to the standard of the English. This was clearly shown by the invention of the Dreadnought by England. Being one of the first real battleships, it contained thick walls of steel and multiple guns. No boat could compete with something like that. Germany again was behind in the naval stock up.
However, while the stocking up of armies continued, so did the tactics. It was with the Von Schleiffen Plan and the French “Plan 17” that a war was being shaped. In order to protect ones country, each army felt it was their duty to create a strategy to survive. One does create a plan and build boats if one does not plan on using them. The German Von Schleiffen Plan was Germany’s ticket to victory. It believed that if it attacked France swiftly first through Belgium and won, it could focus all its power on the eastern front against Russia.
France’s answer to this plan, though we do not know whether they knew the existence of the German plan, was the Plan 17. Although this was not a fixed military strategy it outlined a plan of mobilization if Germany did attack. This again was a military act, with the purpose to defend ones country, ones own people. This in itself is a Nationalistic idea.
Of course one could claim that each of these plans was actually not in the purpose of nationalism but just an act to modernize the military. Perhaps the goal was to aid others in their fight for freedom. This could be support with the Kruger Telegram, where Kaiser Wilhelm II congratulates the President of Transvaal in defeating England. As a new power perhaps Germany wished to support other countries in their rise to power and freedom. Following this one could argue that through the German feeling of encirclement, with Russia, England and France hostile to her, perhaps Germany just wanted to feel saver with a plan. However this is just one way of looking at it.
From a militaristic point of view, Germany had stocked up against a war with the newest technology, considering the possibility that a war may come and had outlined a strategic plan. A revisionist such as Sidney B. Fay, would consider Germany’s actions in defense of itself, but never had had the actual intensions of causing or being within a European War.
Looking back, it can be said that through strong nationalistic feelings, militarism thrived. Thus it was not the military by itself which starting stocking for war, but the actual fear that the home country could be over run and thus lose ones national pride.
With the strengthening of the army, national pride became apparent. But how could this new power be tested and shown to the world? This is where imperialism begun to take shape within the nationalistic ideals. Although imperialism had been building for centuries it had originally begun to form through the pride of nations and the urge to show the world their greatness. Countries started to compete for the international power in events such as the Fashoda Incident, Suez Canal, and the Second Moroccan Crisis. Nationalism did not stop before borders, but instead hastened its followers to carry it farther and farther into the world. The Scramble for Africa had become a chess board where each power could show off its country’s skills.
Taking the Fashoda Incident, it becomes clear that although countries which had been viewed as potential allies, were actually hostile to each other when it came to their imperialistic values. England wanting a British Africa from Cape to Cairo, would do anything to gain Egypt. However France had a similar dream only this time from Morocco eastwards. Thus the two countries met at Fashoda, Egyptian Sudan and it soon became clear: Britain was prepared to go to war. England did in the end reach its dream and won Fashoda thus making the imperialistic dream all the more true. However this would harden the relationships between all European countries for a while. England was the most powerful imperialistic power, what nation with strong nationalistic feelings would accept this easily?
England while gaining its Africa from Cape to Cairo, also had the Suez Canal. Although at first it had been French, it still was the lifeline to India, were spices and riches awaited. With England buying the Canal, it again made a huge leap in its imperialism causing the English to increase the view of themselves and that they were unbeatable. National pride was bound to happen.
France and Germany also had their disputes during the Scramble for Africa. Germany wanting to show off its power in the world often angered other countries. With the Agadir Crisis, Germany showed that she, a small, yet imperialistic power could attack the port of Agadir and threaten France over its power in Morocco. Both countries wanted to spread the glamour of their nation however those who opposed them were not to be seen in a favorable light.
Each imperialistic act was motivated by a nationalistic one. One could claim that Imperialism had more to with Industrialization, since each country needed more resources to continue growing however, while this may have been a side cause, it was not the main cause. Taking the Opium Wars in China for example, Britain was of course greatly interested in the actual opium and wanted China to continue buying it however Britain’s main dream was to actually control most of the globe. May “the sun never set on the British Empire.” Thus getting into a war with China gave Britain even more influence in Asia. The Kingdom had its foot in the door.
Through a cliometric point of view, Imperialism was the way for countries to gain wealth and build their economies. Without expanding their borders, they never could have accumulated the wealth that they did. One could also say that Nationalism, through Imperialism, gave itself the needed money to continue building a nation’s splendor.
From another viewpoint, a counterfactualist would question that what if the European nations had not started to expand their imperialism, would the nationalistic pride been contained? With the nationalistic pride contained, would a World War I have happened?
Imperialism leaves a lot of questions open, but it certainly helped strengthen Nationalistic pride within countries and thus was a clear factor for Nationalism and through that World War I.
Another nationalistic influenced factor were the alliances during the 1880’s and 1900’s. They in themselves had a huge impact on the political methods of countries, especially being affected by the vague methods of politicians, the interests of the countries, and the family ties. Each alliance was made in the pride of nationalism, making sure that those which belonged to their folk, and their folk alone would be within their circle of trust. Why did Germany never hastened for an alliance with France but instead angered it more day by day? The pride of the German nation was clear: citizens of Alsace and Lorraine are Germans, they should have no connections to France. However it was not just the claiming of Alsace and Loraine that fired forth the breaking and making of alliances.
Each country had its own to protect. Germany wanted to unite all German speaking people under one banner. However it was not just Germany who did this. Russia made it clear from the start that it would support the Slavic People. For with them it felt itself greatly related. How else would the USSR be formed in the later years?
While the support of Russia for the Slavic People was clear, what was not so clear was Sir Edward Grey’s support of France. Although as British foreign minister, he always said he would support France, he was never backed up by the cabinet. Thus the Germans did not deem the statement important. However the alliance stood, hidden in the shadows. Although England never said it went to war in defense of France, this was one of their main reasons. Belgium was just a cover to hide the prideful nationalistic feeling which were angered that Germany had dared to attack a British ally. The English were shocked that such a fresh power would think itself powerful enough against an old power. Although the British hid it well, nationalistic feelings, shown through alliances caused them to come to the “defense” of Belgium.
Another country which made alliances in favor of its Nationalistic ideals was Germany. Austria-Hungary was a part German speaking country. Thus Germany believed to support its fellow German speaking partner. Through the issuing of the Blank Cheque, Germany said simply, what our fellow people, the Austrian-Hungarians do, is the right thing, and represents the ideals of the German people. In a way, Germany put itself right in the middle and said this is where we stand. An alliance forged over nationalistic views that the people of one culture should stand together.
Looking at the Dreikaiserbund, one must question the idea of alliances being based on nationalism. How can a pact between Germany, Austira-Hungary, and Russia happen? Russia who supports the Slavic People and had every intention on breaking up the states under Austria-Hungary? Well, it was all in the interest of the countries again. Each thought that they could gain from the pact in a nationalistic order. Austria-Hungary and Russia both had their eyes fixated on Eastern Europe, both thinking that acting as an ally of the other could bring them their priced possession. Germany also saw its chance on brining down its archenemy France, thus again boosting its national confidence. However as we know, it didn’t end up that way and thus even though it was tried again, the Dreikaiserbund failed. Looking at the alliances from different points of view, more support can be found for alliances being a sub-factor under nationalism.
From a revisionist point of view, such as Lawrence Lafore, if Britain had clearly stated that it would support France and go to war if she was attacked then for sure Germany would not have supported Austria so greatly against Serbia. A revisionist clearly sees that had people been more open about their loyalties whether to their own or another then World War I may have been preventable.
Through the eyes of the common English man (prosopography), Germany had every intention of over taking England, however England was acting honorably by coming to the defense of the invasion of neutral Britain. As Germany had not honored the request of not invading Belgium, Britain must come in the defense of the innocent (like stated in the Daily Mirror of the 4th of August 19140).
For the nations, alliances were made with those who had the same thoughts, cultures, and goals as them. This meant that any country who was an ally of another had to live up to the expectations of the other in order to be an ally of their country. When it comes down to the roots, nationalism again surfaces.
What about nationalism standing by itself? As a leading factor, did it ever surface just on its own? When looking closely, nati
onalism not only was the main leading factor for world war one but also the most relevant and closest to the start of World War I. With the building of the Black Hand, which caused the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which then led to the Austrian-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia, no other cause was so close to the actual beginning of World War I then nationalism.
The Black Hand had been building through decades, said to have been organized by the Serbian military and deeply involved in their government. However the Black Hand formed in order to free other Slavic states from the control of Austria-Hungary and create a unified Slavic Folk. Thus the nationalistic pride here is evident again. However, the Black Hand is also seen as the responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by its member: Gavril Principle. Through the death of the next leader of Austria-Hungary, the pride of the Austrian-Hungarians was greatly hurt and caused great grief to break out.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is always seen as the opening event of World War I. Through it Austria-Hungary was able to issue its Ultimatum to Serbia, which if not accepted would lead to a war. That Austria-Hungary extra wrote the Ultimatum so that Serbia could not accept it, is speculation, or if true then again underlines the Nationalistic pride of Austria-Hungary. Nationalism though clearly was the reason for the Archduke’s death which then caused the raging answer of war.
Of course nationalism alone could never have caused World War I. Without an army, allies or imperialism (wealth), nations such as England and Germany never would have had the power to go to war on such a scale. Therefore one can only counterclaim that by itself nationalism is nothing but a thought process. However this thought process caused militarism, imperialism, and alliance to rise to totally new levels.
Through the view of a revisionist such as Franz Fischer, Germany through its pride, deliberately set out for a war and had always planned one. This could be supported by Bismarck’s actions and strategic plans such as the Von Schleiffen Plan. However Fischer’s ideas are the most controversial theories due to the fact that he himself was German and an active member of the Nazi Party. Still, nationalism even by Fischer, was the main cause for World War I.
However why do we try so fervently to find the reasons for World War I? What is the value of studying it? Well from the very beginning it is clear we must learn from our mistakes. It must become clear to us what must have caused the war. While we can never be sure, we can try to make assumptions in order to avoid them in the future. Looking at it from a TOK perspective, through reason and logic we can find what caused World War I. Once we have come to an agreement, let’s say Nationalism as the main reason, then using sense perception, emotion and language, we can try and bring this to all areas of our learning in order to avoid future wars.
However in order to do this we must make a lot of assumptions. In order for us to answer this question we must assume that we know the mind set of the time, (which we cannot know for sure) all the events, and problems of the time. Also, believing that only one reason is a cause for World War I is something unrealistic. But we can say that one cause caused all the other causes or at the very least influenced them.
Using the Socratic Method we can still try however to eliminate all other possibilities until we cannot find one exception for it, or not that many exceptions to it. This method gives us the right to eliminate other possibilities and strengthen others. Still World War I will most probably stay an enigma for the rest of our time.
Albert Einstein once said, “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” And he was right, for like the plague, it spread itself through the system of nations, affecting each and every part of their governing. How would the 1900’s have been different without nationalism? One thing is clear though that nationalism affected each area which can be considered a main cause for World War I therefore making it the main cause. For if looked at closely, nationalism caused an expansion of militarism, bringing forth more and more power for one country. With the military fully capable, militarism together with nationalism caused the boom of imperialism. With now an empire throughout the world, a great military and nationalistic pride, countries began to look for more land closer to home, and what better way was there then an alliance. However, the countries became too power hungry as it often happens and could not see the borders anymore. Nationalism poisoned each and every part of the new dawning age. With industrialization, nationalism received the method to take over and cause not only one but two terrible wars. How could one have stopped such a fast spreading of the disease when it is a silent shadow? At least the world, with World War I and II, has gained the knowledge never to try another World War, and hopefully one day, not to cause any more wars at all. However, only the people scared of the footprints will not tread that path. “Vestigia terrent.”
Footnotes:
“Vestigia terrent” is a famous quote from the Roman Poet Horace with the meaning, “the footprints frighten me”.
