Origins of First World War

Discuss the origins of the First World War with reference to growing national consciousness among varying ethnicities in multinational empires in Europe as well as theories of imperialism along with imperialist rivalries between great powers in between years 1870 to 1914. The twentieth century was the century of crisis and catastrophe for Europe that witnessed two devastating wars across the European continent. It killed nearly ten million men, injured countless more, destroyed businesses, and caused widespread famine as well as political and social turmoil across Europe. It led to the demise of some of the world's most powerful empires, the creation of new nation-states in their place, and the redrawing of Europe's geography. The history of the world war one is widely debated so are its causes. Great deal of the literature produced over the past ninety years has focused on the events on the Western Front and their impact on metropolitan Britain, France, and Germany. Most of these histories are framed within two “classic” assumptions: first, that the war began with the sounding of the “guns of August” in 1914 and ended with the Armistice of November 11, 1918 and second, that the war was primarily one fought in Europe between European nation-states. Meanwhile, ethnic minorities, imperial troops, and Eastern European or non-European theaters of fighting, conscription, and upheaval have remained at best sideshows in general history accounts of war and peace on the Western front.1 After a series of events sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, World War 1 began in August 1914. Over 17 million people would be dead by the end of the war, including over 100,000 American troops. The reasons for the outbreak of war are far more complicated than a simple list of causes. However, any attempt to understand the war's beginnings must take into consideration a wide variety of long-standing causes. Mutual defence alliances were the first cause that triggered "The Great War." The majority of European countries at the time formed defence agreements that drew them into combat. If nation A was invaded by country C, country B, D, E, and other allied countries were required to defend them, and this was referred to as an alliance. At the very beginning of World War 1, Germany, Austria and Hungary allied and became the "Triple alliance or it was known as central powers alliance when Italy joined with them in 1822. France and Russia, on the other hand, formed an alliance, and in 1904, France signed a deal with the Britain promising to cooperate. In addition to that, in 1907 Britain was also made an entente with Russia then among France, Russia and Britain, they worked together and formed "Triple Entente." The situation in Europe became one of "armed peace" as the Triple Alliance faced the Triple Entente. Even though the European countries were at peace with one another, they maintained a 1 Despite recent attempts to write transnational histories of the Great War, the global history of its immediate aftermath is yet to be tackled. The most recent attempts at transnational histories of the Great War include Alan Kramer, Dynamics of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War (Oxford, 2008). On the global ramifications of the Paris Peace Treaties, see: Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (Oxford, 2007) careful eye on their neighbors, creating an environment of terror and mistrust across Europe. The rise of militarism, which was deeply intertwined to the alliance system, has also been blamed for the conflict. The practise of keeping big armies dates back to the French Revolution, and it was carried on by Napoleon. During Germany's unification, Bismarck expanded and improved it significantly. By 1914, Germany had increased its military spending the most. During this time, both the United Kingdom and Germany significantly expanded their warships. Furthermore, the military establishment began to exert a stronger impact on public policy, notably in Germany and Russia. This rise in militarism aided in pushing the countries involved into conflict. However, the idea that arms build up leads to war is debatable and unproven. According to Niall Ferguson, the importance of the weapons race in inciting the First World War has been substantially overstated. Another major aspect that contributed to the war was the surge of nationalism that spread over Europe. It was, in fact, one of the French Revolution's legacies. The triumph of nationalism in Germany and Italy gave it a fresh lease of life and made it a powerful political force. The union of Germany and Italy was possible largely due to Bismarck and Cavour's ability to arouse nationalist sentiment. Militarism is connected to nationalism since every country was nationalistic in its own eyes and believed that it was superior. As a result, they believed that large armies were critical for them to safeguard their homeland. Furthermore, the desire of the Slavic peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina to no longer be a part of Austria-Hungary and instead become a member of Serbia was a major driving force behind the conflict. As a result, nationalism precipitated the War. However, nationalism in numerous nations throughout Europe contributed not only to the start but also to the expansion of the European war. Each country attempted to demonstrate its control and power. The role of national self-determination in the outbreak of the conflict has been a hot topic of discussion. The First World War, according to Martel, arose from a clash between Slav nationalism and the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. The assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand was the ultimate straw in this war for Balkan dominance. It provided a perfect opportunity for the Austro-Hungarian administration to mobilise public opinion in favour of a conflict. But, only a few scholars disagree that the battle to displace the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans played a significant role in the commencement of the war. In July 1914, Austria-military Hungary's chiefs were so determined to deal with Serbia that they lost their minds and rejected any negotiating efforts. Following Austria-decision Hungary's to annex outright occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1903, a series of confrontations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia erupted, the most significant of which occurred after Austria-decision Hungary's to annex outright occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina (1908).2 For many Serbs, Austria-annexation Hungary's shattered any illusions that the occupation of Bosnia was only a temporary measure that might be reversed if The controversy about the relationship between Serbian militarist associations and the Serbian government continues into the present-day, as shown by the response to Christopher Clark’s important new work on the Balkan origins of the First World War, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914, New York 2013. 2 international diplomatic winds shifted. Following the creation of a weak military alliance of the Balkan republics (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, the socalled "Balkan League") directed against the Ottoman Empire in 1912, the cycle of struggle that led to the First World War began in the Ottoman Balkans. Following Italy's victory in Tripoli, this empire was considerably diminished, with the goal of "liberating" the Christian Balkans from imperial authority.3 However, according to John Leslie, Austria-Hungary may be accused for organizing a local Austro-Serbo battle in response to its worries about Balkan nationalism, while Germany, which was uninterested in the struggle, exploited it as a chance to initiate the European war that Austria-Hungary had never wanted. The First World War was fought not just between European nation-states, but also, and probably most importantly, between global empires. If we take the war seriously as a global conflict, we must do more respect to the millions of imperial subjects who were called upon to protect their imperial governments' interests a century later. As The expansion of Europe into new territories in the nineteenth century sparked fresh imperialist rivalry among the world's leading nations. In the decades leading up to World War I, dominant European nations waged imperialism against the rest of the world. During the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century, European powers waged huge imperialist operations against African areas. The Scramble for Africa sparked World War I by inflaming rivalry among European powers as they battled for territory in Africa and control over diverse areas. The second half of the 1800s produced a significant ‘rush for empire’. During the Scramble for Africa, Britain and France were the two European powers that controlled the greatest portions of Africa, causing friction with Germany. Germany was enraged that it did not have the African colonies that Britain and France did, and despised their overall influence in Africa. Germany soon started strengthening its empire. Germany's imperial expansion and design focused in Africa and soon East Africa fell under German control. In Germany, this African colonization was well embraced, but it produced issues in the Britain and France. Imperialist theories A variety of variables have been used to explain imperial growth, and different theories place differing weights on economic, social, cultural, and geopolitical aspects. Those who related new imperialism to economic issues and regarded imperialism as coming from contemporary capitalism were among the early ideas explaining imperialism. J.A. Hobson, a British economist, proposed the thesis that advanced capitalist nations in the West were defined by unequal income distribution, and that this concentrated excess capital forced governments to seek investment opportunities elsewhere.4 Lenin in 1916 in his pamphlet Imperialism-The Highest Stage of Capitalism portrayed the Great War as an imperialist conflict fueled by rivalries sparked by demands from highly organised financial monopolies operating in several European countries.He believed that German monopoly capital was behind German For a useful military history of the Balkan Wars, see Hall, Richard C.: The Balkan Wars, 19121913. Prelude to the First World War, London/New York 2000. 3 foreign policy. He said that imperialism has taken capitalism to its peak, and that intense struggle among business rivals for markets and raw supplies has eventually led to war. Paul Kennedy, a leading diplomat historian, has recently suggested that economic interests are a key reality behind diplomacy. Politicians, he believes, have the autonomy to conduct foreign policy—even to make critical war decisions— without regard for economic interest groups inside society. However, the success or failure of those judgments is ultimately determined by each nation's economic and industrial interests. This indicates that politicians have first priority in making political decisions about war, but they have little influence over the economic implications of such actions. As a result, economics plays a critical role in determining the fate of states in a global system. Conclusion One of the Great War's great historical ironies is that a war of empires, fought primarily by empires for the survival or expansion of empire, dealt a crippling blow to dynastic empires, which had been the preeminent type of state organisation for centuries, as well as imperial expansion and acquisition as the main logic of relations between states in world affairs. To sum up, World War I did not end with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, since its social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, and psychological impacts continued to influence people's lives long after the final shot was fired.