NAME: DISHA SHARMA

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE ASSIGNMENT

THIRD YEAR, 6TH SEMESTER
210487

What were the main causes of the First World War? Trace the shift in the
historiography of the First World War
Europe in the early months of 1914 appeared to be at peace, but this picture proved to be deceptive.
It masked great underlying problems and increasing pessimism on the part of many European
leaders about developments which they believed were undermining their countries position and
great power status. Since the 1900 Europe was besieged by a large number of problems all of which
had culminated into war. These crises were provoked by a number of serious issues which were
causing mounting friction amongst the powers and which, by 1914, in the opinion of many European
statesmen, were becoming insoluble by means other than resort to war. The war was the first large
scale international conflict after the Napoleonic era.

One of the reasons for havoc being created within Europe was the outcome of Franco- Prussian war
of 1870 and the formation of a new German empire which included 2 French provinces namely
Alsace and Lorraine which had altered the distribution of power within Europe. the ongoing
processes of industrialization and urbanization had generated social and economic conflicts in most
European countries

With the rise of nationalist feelings across the eastern Europe and Balkans it was harder for
governments to compromise on their national goals whereas in the near east and Balkans as the
ottoman empire declined , major powers fought for influence. On the other hand, Russia aimed to
expand trying to advantage from turkey’s weakness.

ROLE OF OTTO VON BISMARCK

Otto von Bismarck’s primary role was the unification of the German empire. He encouraged France
to focus on colonial expansion in Africa and Asia, driving its focus away from Europe. He also worked
to align Austria- Hungary and Russia with Germany to maintain peace within Eastern Europe. In
1872, he also organized a meeting in Berlin between the emperors of the three
monarchies, known as the 'League of the Three Emperors'. However, any sort of
agreements was difficult to attain. Through all these measures he aimed at
curbing the spread of nationalism and industrialism across Europe. His main
challenge lay in balancing the conflicting interests of Russia and Austria-
Hungary, especially in the Balkans where former Turkish provinces were
asserting their national identities and seeking independence amidst the declining
power of the Ottoman Empire.
SITUATION OF SOUTHEAST EUROPE IN THE 19TH CENTURY
Some of these regions housed Slavic communities, who appealed to the Russian
Emperor based on shared ethnicity and religion, seeking assistance in their
historical struggle against the Ottoman Turks. In respect to this, the pan Slavism
movement was led with gained huge grounds within Russia. As Russia became
increasingly involved in Balkan affairs due to these appeals, Austria was
determined to limit Russian influence in the region. Their strategy involved
suppressing nationalist and independence movements and bolstering the
Ottoman Empire to the extent possible, in order to minimize Russian
involvement. Hence, we saw that Russia and Austria- Hungry were in a head on
conflict. It was impossible for Bismarck to support both Russia and Austria hence
he tried to strike a balance between the two and failed to do so. the Russo-
Turkish War of 1877 did contribute to further weakening the Ottoman
Empire's grip on its European territories in the Balkans.

THE TRIPPLE ALLIANCE OF 1879-1882

in 1879 Bismarck decided to form a defensive alliance between Austria Hungry
and Russia. He reckoned to hold French diplomatic isolation and to compel
Austrian collaboration with Russia with this move. This alliance also aimed to
safeguard the stability of the Near East and commit to neutrality should any of
the three empires become embroiled in conflict with a fourth power. On one hand
the partners of the Triple Alliance attempted to maintain the status quo in the
continent. Others however, saw this as an attempt to dominate Europe and to
isolate other states from each other. They, therefore, took steps to form counter
alliances. France and Russia entered into an entente. This entente was aimed at
countering the Triple Alliance and also containing Britain, against whom both France and Russia had
outstanding disputes over the colonies. The entente achieved its initial goal during the Russo-
Japanese War of 1904-1905, with Britain and France refraining from involvement as Russia faced a
series of significant losses to Japan. Bismarck's diplomatic achievements between 1871
and 1890 ensured short-term stability in Europe, leading many historians to
believe that Europe's problems intensified only after his fall. However, his
strategies and tactics also left lasting challenges for his successors. Bismarck’s
diplomatic agreements had left France in a deep state of resentment over her
defeat in war, loss of territory etc. Bismarck's African ventures also yielded
undesirable long-term consequences. Britain was portrayed as the opposing
force as Germany’s aspirations for colonies were thwarted, adding to the German
resentment.
THE GERMAN THREAT
After the German unification in 1871, the German power had increased by leaps
and bounds, in terms of economy. This was seen as a major threat by its rivals,
particularly by France.
Bismarck had succeeded in minimizing this threat by keeping France
diplomatically isolated, but his successors lacked his diplomatic skills and were
not able to continue successfully his strategy of French containment in Europe.
German industrial and military strength were a threat to both the French and
Russians, but the gap was huge. Thus, threatening to destroy the European
balance of power.
NAVAL RIVALRY
By 1890, Britain's registered tonnage surpassed that of the rest of the world
combined, solidifying London as the global financial centre. However, the rise of
industrialization in the United States and Germany posed a threat to Britain's
industrial and commercial dominance.
Due to this, Britain found herself in a very defensive state against France and
Germany. Adding to this Britain's naval supremacy and its capability to safeguard
crucial sea routes faced additional threats due to the Franco-Russian alliance.
Germany wanted to be next to neck in terms of navy with Britain and the naval
laws of 1898 and 199 laid the basis for a powerful German navy fleet. This arose
Britain’s antagonism and it strengthened forces in opposition to German
ambitions on Europe.

THE RUSSIAN THREAT

The Germans felt burdened by the entente powers who were tightening their grip
on the enemies. Russian industrialization and modernization caused significant
concern in Berlin, prompting discussions of preventive war against France and
Russia to allow Germany to break free from burden. In December 1912, the
Kaiser and his military advisors thoroughly assessed Germany's war capabilities
against the Entente powers. Army leaders insisted on attacking Russia sooner
rather than later due to Russia's alarming growth in power. Plans were made to
expand the Kiel Canal, prepare army strategies for war, and launch a propaganda
campaign against Russia. By 1914, many German leaders considered preventive
war not only desirable but necessary, especially given Austria-Hungary's inability
to counter growing Russian and Serbian influence in the Balkans. Emperor
William II even suggested that anyone doubting Russia and France's intentions to
attack Germany belonged in a lunatic asylum, indicating the prevailing mindset
in Germany at the time.

THE BALKAN CRISES

Over a hundred languages were spoken in the Russian empire and in Austria-
Hungary at least 15 different languages were spoken and the German speaking
population struggled to maintain its identity in respect to the other racial groups.
The rise of liberalism and nationalism in nineteenth-century Europe weakened
state authority by challenging absolute rulers and fuelling nationalist sentiments
among diverse subject peoples. By the late nineteenth century, both
governments felt pressure domestically and internationally, prompting them to
vigorously safeguard what they considered crucial national interests. This often
led to violent clashes in certain regions, as neither power was willing to allow its
influence to diminish in Favor of the other.
The war lasted for almost four years, even though it had previous financial
consequences, it most largely affected the human life. In order to justify the
heavy repercussions of the war, the peace treaty of Versailles was signed in
1919.
The Victorious powers
declared that the war was
premeditated by Germany
and her allies, and resulted
from ‘acts deliberately
committed to make it
unavoidable’. It is
enshrined in Article 231 of
the Treaty of
Versailles. The German
attempt to revise Versailles
historiographically also
received considerable
support
from historians
The Victorious powers
declared that the war was
premeditated by Germany
and her allies, and resulted
from ‘acts deliberately
committed to make it
unavoidable’. It is
enshrined in Article 231 of
the Treaty of
Versailles. The German
attempt to revise Versailles
historiographically also
received considerable
support
from historians
The Victorious powers
declared that the war was
premeditated by Germany
and her allies, and resulted
from ‘acts deliberately
committed to make it
unavoidable’. It is
enshrined in Article 231 of
the Treaty of
Versailles. The German
attempt to revise Versailles
historiographical also
received considerable
support
from historians
The victorious powers asserted that Germany and its allies premeditated the
war, citing "acts deliberately committed to make it unavoidable," as outlined in
Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. Historically, German attempts to revise the
narrative of the Versailles Treaty have garnered significant support from
historians. In 1927, Erich Brandenburg, a German historian, argued that
Germany did not plan the war, but it was a result of miscalculations on the part
of several European countries. He blamed Russia for wanting control of the
Balkans, France for coveting Alsace-Lorraine. The German attempt to revise
Versailles in a historiographical manner also received considerable support from
historians outside Germany, notably in the U.S. other German historians pointed
out that their potential miscalculations by German leaders, such as Kaiser
Wilhelm II's assumption that Tsar Nicholas II would not support Serbia after the
assassination of a royal heir, or the belief that Britain might remain neutral in a
European mainland conflict. However, they argued that these errors in judgment
did not justify attributing unwarranted aggression to Germany.
Others like Woodrow Wilson believed that the secret diplomacy and the selfish
greed of the pre-war Europeans had led to the collision. In in1925, a historian
named Barnes had written a book called THE GENESIS OF THE WORLD WAR
expressing his discontent towards the war in general.
In Sidney Fay's book "The Origins of the First World War," he argued that
no European country actually wanted war in 1914. Instead, he believed that all
the countries involved, shared responsibility for its outbreak. Fay blamed each
country involved in the July crisis to some extent. He argued that Germany, was
mainly a victim of its alliance with Austria-Hungary, which was the main
instigator. Germany felt it needed to defend itself against Serbian nationalism.
Serbia, though not seeking war, felt compelled to fight, partly due to Russian
encouragement and mobilization. France supported Russia, and Britain's failure
to restrain Russia also contributed. Overall, there was a general agreement that
all nations slid into war in 1914, indicating that Germany was not solely to
blame.
Another differing perspective was put forth by Lenin in 1916. He portrayed the
great war to be an imperialist war caused by rivalries triggered off by the
pressures of highly organized financial monopolies operating in the different
European countries. He argued that capitalism had reached its highest stage in
the form of imperialism and bought war.
In the early 1900’s communists and socialists had also tried to strike a
connection between the war and capitalism., and the important role that
imperialism had played in arousing tensions and driving nations to war and this
was accepted as the Marxist explanation.
The non-Marxist interpretations came into play as well. They put forth the view
that states with a capitalist mode of production are bound to become involved in
wars because of internally generated conflicts and clashes with other powers
over access to raw materials and territories is a very general proposition which
does not fit very closely the particular circumstances of 1914. By and large, a
consensus of sorts was established, aptly summarized in the words of the British
Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who suggested that ‘all the nations of Europe slithered
over the edge of the boiling cauldron of war in 1914’. This indicated that Germany no
longer bore the sole burden of the 1914 catastrophe.
More recent historical research offers a different perspective. In his book "Origins
of the First World War" (1967), L. C. F. Turner highlighted the miscalculations of
key statesmen, particularly in Germany, and the failure of civilian leaders across
Europe to grasp the military consequences of their decisions in a timely manner.
Other historians have emphasized the dominance of military decision-making in
1914 and the overshadowing of civilian leaders by ambitious military and naval
figures across major European capitals.
Other prominent historians have tried to focus on nationality issues. Bernadotte
Schmitt argued that the primary cause of the 1914 war was the denial of self-
determination to minority groups. He stated that this conflict between existing
governments and discontented minorities was the main reason for the
catastrophe. Especially acute in Eastern Europe, this tension, resulting from
political boundaries dividing nationalities, fuelled the bitter conflict between
Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
In "The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, A. J. P. Taylor depicted German rulers
aggressively seeking continental supremacy before 1914. This alarmed Britain,
 France, and Russia, prompting them to form a defensive alliance to curb German
political and economic influence. He claims that the First World War was caused
‘almost entirely by rival plans for mobilization by the European Powers’.

These views were critiqued by the revisionist school of historians, like, Fritz Fischer contended
that German expansionist goals were not limited to fringe groups like the Pan-Germans or
militarists but also involved previously perceived moderate sectors, including Chancellor
Bethmann-Hollweg. Germany sought war to establish itself as a global power, aiming to
dominate across social, political, cultural, and economic spheres. The military's influence over
the government led to reliance on plans like the Schlieffen Plan, ultimately worsening the
crisis. Fischer argued that German war aims were shaped by socio-economic conditions and
prevailing pressures, limiting individual decisions. He emphasized that these aims stemmed
from Germany's desire for global dominance. His work wasn’t widely accepted and was highly
criticized. Fischer's critics argue that German leaders sought a limited 'defensive war' in 1914.
Zechlin counters Fischer, suggesting that Benthmann-Hollweg didn't orchestrate the First
World War but took calculated risks to achieve diplomatic victory or engage in defensive
action. Zechlin notes Benthmann-Hollweg's concerns about Germany's perceived weakening
against the Entente powers and Russia's growing influence in the Balkans, as well as Austria-
Hungary's decline. Karl Erdmann published published the diary of Kurt riezler . He also refutes
Fischer by claiming that the development of territorial aims, was a product of the war and not
the fulfilment of a pre-war plan. He rejects the notion that the war was launched for
economic and imperialist gains or as an escape from the domestic problems. For Erdmann,
German war aims were limited to preventing a diplomatic ‘encirclement’ by the Entente
powers. Hans Ulrich Wehler suggests that German war aims were largely influenced by
domestic policy, particularly emphasizing the role of the Prussian aristocratic 'Junker' class in
shaping German foreign policy. He argues that Fischer's concept of continuity in German
history from 1871 to 1914 is crucial for understanding the outbreak of the First World War.
According to Wehler, the pursuit of Weltpolitik served as a distraction from domestic issues
within Germany

Arno Mayer, in "The Persistence of the Old Regime" (1981), depicted a widespread crisis in
the politics and policies of Europe's ruling and governing classes, extending beyond Germany
to other major countries as well.

However, one cannot overlook the influence of the prevailing

ideological climate on the factors leading to the First World War.
In 1914, widespread ideology and beliefs significantly
contributed to the escalation of wartime hysteria. Darwin's
theory of natural selection, as outlined in "The Origin of
Species," was interpreted into Social Darwinism, serving as
both a motive for power and a justification for expansionist
policies. This ideology aimed to counterbalance social thinking
and was seen as a response to the Communist Manifesto's
perceived harm. Koch argues that every state developed a
specific identity, leading to a consciousness of differentiation
between satisfied and unsatisfied states, often supported by
scientific justification.

Koch contends that attributing more sinister motives to the

German version of Social Darwinism is unfair compared to
similar manifestations in other nations. James Joll also
highlights the role of ideas from Darwin and Nietzsche, which
were widely disseminated through secondary sources like
newspapers and periodicals. Nietzsche's words encapsulate the
European state of mind at the time: "Insatiable as flame, I burn
and consume myself." Joll further emphasizes the role of
education systems, which often promoted jingoistic
nationalism.

The historiography on the origins of the First World War, whether

'revisionist' or 'anti-revisionist,' tends to be partisan and politically framed,
neglecting social, economic, and institutional questions, as noted by Koch.
Moreover, the debate often becomes German-centric. Attempting to
explain the outbreak of the war with a single logic is futile due to its
unprecedented nature. No mono-causal model suffices to study a conflict
of such immense dimensions and magnitude. The truth lies in the
collaborative functioning of all these factors leading to the First World War.

i) Race and racism in European thought

Sociology refers to racism as a social construct. Modern European society
has often embraced the notion of categorizing the world's population into
distinct biological groups such as 'black,' 'white,' 'Asian,' or other
ethnicities, perceiving them as permanently divided and arranged
hierarchically from superior to inferior types. On the basis of this racial
superiority the “white Europeans” have dominated, suppressed and killed
the “ inferior people”. During the 19th and 20th century, European racism
took 2 forms, that of anti-black racism with its historic roots in slavery and
colonial conquest, and racial anti-Semitism grounded in a totally different
tradition of Christian oppression, segregation and pogroms dating back to
the Middle Ages.
The potent associations linked with the concept of "blackness" in Europe
have been so influential that the term 'black', symbolizing biological or
cultural inferiority, has been widely utilized across European society to
racialize various other minority groups, including Jews, Gypsies, the Irish,
and Chechens, etc. in countries like France, racism has been most
aggressive towards immigrants from Algeria. And has been structured in
terms of Orientalism, a tradition rooted in the long conflict between
Christian Europe and the Muslim and Arab world of the Middle East and
North Africa.
Historians like George Mosse studied the two types of racisms. He pointed
put that the anti-black racism was centred particularly western European
imperial and maritime powers with a history of slavery and colonialism.
while the core of anti-Semitism was located in Central and Eastern Europe,
the demographic and cultural heartland of world Jewry, where ‘the highly
visible Jews took the place of the blacks as the “foil” of race’.
The Europeans described blacks to be as naturally lazy, by this what they
meant was that the whites were naturally dynamic, busy and
enterprising. The idea of degeneration was highly prevalent in Europe.
This term was used to refer to a whole range of social pathologies that
threatened the biological substance of the European race, from
alcoholism, TB etc.
Another key aspect was the concept of SOCIAL DARWINISM given in the
origin of species. It assumed a form of “class-racism” in Europe. The
bourgeoisie feared the proliferation of proletarian slums in major cities
leading to the breeding of crime, immortality, socialism etc.
The eugenic ideas, which means “good in birth” or “noble in hereditary”
was a movement prevalent in Europe after 1883 and had negative
implications emphasized
the most controversial forms of suppression of the racially feeble, and
positive eugenics, which promoted steps to encourage or enhance the
birth rate of the biologically superior individuals or groups. Negative
eugenics has received more attention from historians since its methods
appear to have laid the basis for the worst excesses of National Socialism.
The negative eugenics were perceived to have hereditary traits that would
damage the future biological fitness. The main solution to this was sought
through the enforced sterilization or castration of criminals, the physically
handicapped, the mentally ill and the diseased, whose condition was
regarded as the outcome of impurity, nature’s ‘punishment’ of racial
degenerates for their alcoholism, uncontrolled sexuality and atavistic
savagery. Positive eugenics focused on implementing supportive natalist
programs aimed at ensuring the birth of the highest possible number of
healthy babies. This concern revolved around the demographic aspect of
'quantity', but more commonly emphasized 'quality'. These measures
were designed to promote and facilitate the childbirth among couples
chosen from what was deemed superior physical and racial backgrounds.
Europe, through the ages had experienced different forms of racism and
there has been a great debate among historians in order to find out when
it actually started. Nor can there be a universal definition of racism that
will hold true to all parts of the European history.