Interpretations of the causes of World War I a. From The Origins of the World War



Download 32.36 Kb.
Date conversion03.05.2016
Size32.36 Kb.


Interpretations of the causes of World War I
A. From The Origins of the World War by Sidney Bradshaw Fay
Recognized by many historians as the most balanced and scholarly statement of the “revisionist” approach to the causes of the Great War is the two volume study of American historian Sydney Bradshaw Fay published in 1928. Based on a careful examination of the evidence then available, the work is a model of balanced judgment and sound conclusions; considered by many as the most reliable account of the origins of the war. The following is a small extract of his principal arguments.
None of the Powers wanted a European War.  Their governing rulers and ministers, with very few exceptions, all foresaw that it must be a frightful struggle, in which the political results were not absolutely certain, but in which the loss of life, suffering, and economic consequences were bound to be terrible…
Nevertheless, a European War broke out.  Why?  Because in each country political and military leaders did certain things, which led to mobilizations and declarations of war, or failed to do certain things which might have prevented them.  In this sense, all the European countries, in a greater or less degree, were responsible.  One must abandon the dictum of the Versailles Treaty that Germany and her allies were solely responsible.  It was a dictum exacted by victors from vanquished, under the influence of the blindness, ignorance, hatred, and the propagandist misconceptions to which war had given rise .  It was based on evidence which was incomplete and not always sound.  It is generally recognized by the best historical scholars in all countries to be no longer tenable or defensible.  They are agreed that the responsibility for the War is a divided responsibility.  But they still disagree very much as to the relative part of this responsibility that falls on each country and on each individual political or military leader….
One may, however, sum up very briefly the most salient facts in regard to each country.
Serbia felt a natural and justifiable impulse to do what so many other countries had done in the nineteenth century—to bring under one national Government all the discontented Serb people.  She had liberated those under Turkish rule; the next step was to liberate those under Hapsburg rule.  She looked to Russia for assistance, and had been encouraged to expect that she would receive it.  After the assassination, Mr. Pashitch took no steps to discover and bring to justice Serbians in Belgrade who had been implicated in the plot.  One of them, Ciganovitch, was even assisted to disappear.  Mr. Pashitch waited to see what evidence the Austrian authorities could find.  When Austria demanded cooperation of Austrian officials in discovering, though not in trying, implicated Serbians, the Serbian Government made a very conciliatory but negative reply.  They expected that the reply would not be regarded as satisfactory, and, even before it was given, ordered the mobilization of the Serbian army.  Serbia did not want war, but believed it would be forced upon her.  That Mr. Pashitch was aware of the plot three weeks before it was executed, failed to take effective steps to prevent the assassins from crossing over from Serbia to Bosnia, and then failed to give Austria any warning or information which might have averted the fatal crime, were facts unknown to Austria in July, 1914; they cannot therefore be regarded as in any way justifying Austria’s conduct; but they are part of Serbia’s responsibility, and a very serious part.
Austria was more responsible for the immediate origin of the war than any other Power.  Yet from her own point of view she was acting in self-defense—not against an immediate military attack, but against the corroding Greater Serbia and Jugoslav agitation which her leaders believed threatened her very existence.  No State can be expected to sit with folded arms and await dismemberment at the hands of its neighbors.  Russia was believed to be intriguing with Serbia and Rumania against the Dual Monarchy.  The assassination of the heir to the throne, as a result of a plot prepared in Belgrade, demanded severe retribution; otherwise Austria would be regarded as incapable of action, “worm-eaten” as the Serbian Press expressed it, would sink in prestige, and hasten her own downfall.  To avert this Berchtold determined to crush Serbia with war.  He deliberately framed the ultimatum with the expectation and hope that it would be rejected.  He hurriedly declared war against Serbia in order to forestall all efforts at mediation.  He refused even to answer his own ally’s urgent requests to come to an understanding with Russia, on the basis of a military occupation of Belgrade as a pledge that Serbia would carry out the promises in her reply to the ultimatum .  Berchtold gambled on a “local” war with Serbia only, believing that he could rattle the German sword; but rather than abandon his war with Serbia, he was ready to drag the rest of Europe into war….
Germany did not plot a European War, did not want one, and made genuine, though too belated efforts, to avert one.  She was the victim of her alliance with Austria and of her own folly.  Austria was her only dependable ally, Italy and Rumania having become nothing but allies in name.  She could not throw her over, as otherwise she would stand isolated between Russia, where Panslavism and armaments were growing stronger every year, and France, where Alsace-Lorraine, Delcassé’s fall and Agadir were not forgotten.  Therefore, Bethmann felt bound to accede to Berchtold’s request for support and gave him a free hand to deal with Serbia; he also hoped and expected to “localize” the Austro-Serbian conflict.  Germany then gave grounds to the Entente for suspecting the sincerity of her peaceful intentions by her denial of any foreknowledge of the ultimatum, by her support and justification of it when it was published, and by her refusal of Sir Edward Grey’s conference proposal.  However, Germany by no means had Austria so completely under her thumb as the Entente Powers and many writers have assumed.  It is true that Berchtold would hardly have embarked on his gambler’s policy unless he had been assured that Germany would fulfil the obligations of the alliance, and to this extent Germany must share the great responsibility of Austria.  But when Bethmann realized that Russia was likely to intervene, that England might not remain neutral, and that there was danger of a world war of which Germany and Austria would appear to be the instigators, he tried to call a halt on Austria, but it was too late.  He pressed mediation proposals on Vienna, but Berchtold was insensible to the pressure, and the Entente Powers did not believe in the sincerity of his pressure, especially as they produced no results….
Russia was partly responsible for the Austro-Serbian conflict because of the frequent encouragement which she had given at Belgrade—that Serbian national unity would be ultimately achieved with Russian assistance at Austrian expense.  This had led the Belgrade Cabinet to hope for Russian support in case of a war with Austria, and the hope did not prove vain in July, 1914.  Before this, to be sure, in the Bosnian Crisis and during the Balkan Wars, Russia had put restraint upon Serbia, because Russia, exhausted by the effects of the Russo-Japanese War, was not yet ready for a European struggle with the Teutonic Powers.  But in, 1914 her armaments, though not yet completed, had made such progress that the militarists were confident of success, if they had French and British support.  In the spring of 1914, the Minister of War, Sukhomlinov, had published an article in a Russian newspaper, though without signing his name, to the effect, “Russia is ready, France must be ready also.”  Austria was convinced that Russia would ultimately aid Serbia, unless the Serbian danger were dealt with energetically after the Archduke’s murder ;  she knew that Russia was growing stronger every year ;  but she doubted whether the Tsar’s armaments had yet reached the point at which Russia would dare to intervene ;  she would therefore run less risk of Russian intervention and a European War if she used the Archduke’s assassination as an excuse for weakening Serbia, than if she should postpone action until the future.
Russia’s responsibility lay also in the secret preparatory military measures which she was making at the same time that she was carrying on diplomatic negotiations.  These alarmed Germany and Austria.  But it was primarily Russia’s general mobilization, made when Germany was trying to bring Austria to a settlement, which precipitated the final catastrophe, causing Germany to mobilize and declare war.
The part of France is less clear than that of the other Great Powers, because she has not yet made a full publication of her documents.  To be sure, M. Poincaré, in the fourth volume of his memoirs, has made a skillful and elaborate plea, to prove “La France innocente.”  But he is not convincing.  It is quite clear that on his visit to Russia he assured the Tsar’s Government that France would support her as an ally in preventing Austria from humiliating or crushing Serbia.  Paléologue renewed these assurances in a way to encourage Russia to take a strong hand.  He did not attempt to restrain Russia from military measures which he knew would call forth German counter-measures and cause war.  Nor did he keep his Government promptly and fully informed of the military steps which were being taken at St. Petersburg.  President Poincaré, upon his return to France, made efforts for peace, but his great preoccupation was to minimize French and Russian preparatory measures and emphasize those of Germany, in order to secure the certainty of British support in a struggle which he now regarded as inevitable.
Sir Edward Grey made many sincere proposals for preserving peace; they all failed owing partly, but not exclusively, to Germany’s attitude.  Sir Edward could probably have prevented war if he had done either of two things.  If, early in the crisis, he had acceded to the urging of France and Russia and given a strong warning to Germany that, in a European War, England would take the side of the Franco-Russian Alliance, this would probably have led Bethmann to exert an earlier and more effective pressure on Austria;  and it would perhaps thereby have prevented the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia, and brought to successful issue the “direct conversations” between Vienna and St. Petersburg .  Or, if Sir Edward Grey had listened to German urging, and warned France and Russia early in the crisis that if they became involved in war, England would remain neutral, probably Russia would have hesitated with her mobilizations, and France would probably have exerted a restraining influence at St. Petersburg.  But Sir Edward Grey could not say that England would take the side of France and Russia, because he had a Cabinet nearly evenly divided, and he was not sure, early in the crisis, that public opinion in England would back him up in war against Germany.  He could resign, and he says in his memoirs that he would have resigned, but that would have been no comfort or aid to France, who had come confidently to count upon British support. He was determined to say and do nothing which might encourage her with a hope which he could not fulfil.  Therefore, in spite of the pleadings of the French, he refused to give them definite assurances until the probable German determination to go through Belgium made it clear that the Cabinet, and Parliament, and British public opinion would follow his lead in war on Germany.  On the other hand, he was unwilling to heed the German pledges that he exercise restraint at Paris and St. Petersburg, because he did not wish to endanger the Anglo-Russian Entente and the solidarity of the Triple Entente, because he felt a moral obligation to France, growing out of the Anglo-French military and naval conversations of the past years, and because he suspected that Germany was backing Austria up in an unjustifiable course and that Prussian militarists had taken the direction of affairs at Berlin out of the hands of Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg and the civilian authorities.
Italy exerted relatively little influence on the crisis in either direction.
Belgium had done nothing in any way to justify the demand which Germany made upon her.  With commendable prudence, at the very first news of the ominous Austrian ultimatum, she had foreseen the danger to which she might be exposed.  She had accordingly instructed her representatives abroad as to the statements which they were to make in case Belgium should decide very suddenly to mobilize to protect her neutrality.  On July 29, she placed her army upon “a strengthened war footing,” but did not order complete mobilization until two days later, when Austria, Russia, and Germany had already done so, and war appeared inevitable.  Even after being confronted with the terrible German ultimatum, at 7 P.M. on August 2, she did not at once invite the assistance of English and French troops to aid her in the defense of her soil and her neutrality against a certain German assault; it was not until German troops had actually violated her territory, on August 4, that she appealed for the assistance of the Powers which had guaranteed her neutrality.  Belgium was the innocent victim of German strategic necessity.  Though the German violation of Belgium was of enormous influence in forming public opinion as to the responsibility for the War after hostilities began, it was not a cause of the War, except in so far as it made it easier for Sir Edward Grey to bring England into it.
In the fourty years following the Franco-Prussian War, as we have seen, there developed a system of alliances which divided Europe into two hostile groups.  This hostility was accentuated by the increase of armaments, economic rivalry, nationalist ambitions and antagonisms, and newspaper incitement.  But it is very doubtful whether all these dangerous tendencies would have actually led to war, had it not been for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.  That was the factor which consolidated the elements of hostility and started the rapid and complicated succession of events which culminated in a World War, and for that factor Serbian nationalism was primarily responsible.
But the verdict of the Versailles Treaty that Germany and her allies were responsible for the War, in view of the evidence now available, is historically unsound.  It should therefore be revised. 


B. From Germany’s Aims in the First World War by Fritz Fischer
In 1961, the German historian Fritz Fischer brought out his Griff nach der Weltmacht which challenged anew the revisionist position. Based on a thorough study of archival materials that had never before been used, Fischer’s book shattered a long-held German belief that Germany had been reluctantly dragged into war in 1914. The book became the most controversial historical work produced by a German scholar since the end of World War II. In the selection below, taken from the translation of his book, Fischer demonstrates how he used the new materials and argues his case for what he considers to be the real “guilt” of Germany.
The fundamental changes in economic conditions, the widespread prosperity, the rapid growth of the population, the swift expansion in all branches of economic life, combined to create a general conviction, which was reinforced by nationwide propaganda, that Germany’s frontiers had become too narrow for her, but that the ring of powers round her would never consent to their extension….

Economic expansion was the basis of Germany’s political world diplomacy, which vacillated in its methods between rapprochement and conciliation at one moment, aggressive insistence on Germany’s claims the next, but never wavered in its ultimate objective, the expansion of Germany’s power. 

There is no question but that the conflict of military and political interests, of resentment and ideas, which found expression in the July crisis, left any government of any of the European powers quite free of some measure of responsibility-greater or smaller-for the outbreak of the war in one respect or another. It is, however, not the purpose of this work to enter into the familiar controversy, on which whole libraries have been written, over the question of war guilt, to discuss exhaustively the responsibility of the individual statesmen and soldiers of all the European powers concerned, or to pass final judgment on them. We are concerned solely with the German leaders’ objectives and  with the policy actually followed by them in the July crisis, and that only in so far as their policy throws light on the postulates and origins of Germany’s war aims.

It must be repeated given the tenseness of the world situation in 1914- a condition for which Germany’s world policy, which had already led to three dangerous crises (those of 1905, 1908 and 1911), was in no small measure responsible-any limited or local war in Europe directly involving one great power must inevitably carry with it the imminent danger of a general war. As Germany willed and coveted the Austro-Serbian war and, in her confidence in her military superiority, deliberately faced the risk of a conflict with Russia and France, her leaders must bear a substantial share of the historical responsibility for the outbreak of general war in 1914. This responsibility is not diminished by the fact that at the last moment Germany tried to arrest the march of destiny, for her efforts to influence Vienna were due exclusively to the threat of British intervention and, even so, they were half-hearted, belated and immediately revoked.

It is true that German politicians and publicists, and with them the entire German propaganda machine during the war and German historiography after the war-particularly after Versailles-have invariably maintained that the war was forced on Germany, or at least (adopting Lloyd George’s dictum, made for political reasons, that ‘we all stumbled into the war’) that Germany’s share of the responsibility was no greater than that of the other participants. But confidential exchanges between Germany and Austria, and between the responsible figures in Germany itself, untinged by any propagandist intent, throw a revealing spotlight on the real responsibility.

A few weeks after the outbreak of war, during the crises on the Marne and in Galicia, the Austrians asked urgently for German help against the superior Russian armies facing them. It was refused. Count Tisza then advised Berchtold to tell the Germans: “That we took our decision to go to war on the strength of the express statements both of the German Emperor and of the German Imperial Chancellor that they regarded the moment as suitable and would be glad if we showed ourselves in earnest.” 

The official documents afford ample proofs that during the July crisis the Emperor, the German military leaders and the Foreign Ministry were pressing Austria-Hungary to strike against Serbia without delay, or alternatively agreed to the dispatch of an ultimatum to Serbia couched in such sharp terms as to make war between the two countries more than probable. and char in doing so they deliberately took the risk of a continental war against Russia and France. But the decisive point is that, as we now know-although for a  long time it was not admitted-these groups were not alone. On July 5 and 6 the Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, the man in whom the constitution vested the sole responsibility; decided to take the risk and even over-trumped the Emperor when he threatened to weaken. That this was no “tragic doom,” no “ineluctable destiny,” but a deliberate decision of policy emerges beyond doubt from the diary of his private secretary, Kurt Riezler, who recorded in it his conversations with the Chancellor in the critical days (and, indeed, over many years). These diaries have not yet been published, but the extracts from them which have seen the light furnish irrefutable proof that during the July crisis Bethmann Hollweg was ready for war. More than this, Riezler’s entry for the evening of July 8, after Bethmann Hollweg’s return to Hohenfinow (where Rathenau was also stopping) shows what advance calculations the leaders of Germany were making in respect of the situation produced by the Sarajevo murder. According to his secretary, the Chancellor said: “If war doesn’t come, if the Tsar doesn’t want it or France panics and advises peace, we have still achieved this much, that we have manoeuvred the Entente into disintegration over this move.” 

In other words, Bethmann Hollweg reckoned with a major general war as the result of Austria’s swift punitive action against Serbia. If, however, Russia and France were again to draw back (as in 1909 and 1911)-which he at first regarded as the less probable eventuality-then at least Germany would have achieved a signal diplomatic victory: she would have split Russia from France and isolated both without war. But war was what he expected, and how he expected its course to run we learn from his predecessor in the Chancellorship, Bulow, who had a long discussion with him at the beginning of August. Bethmann Hollweg told Bulow that he was reckoning with “a war lasting three, or at the most, four months…a violent, but short storm.” Then, he went on, revealing his innermost wishes, it would “in spite of the war, indeed, through it,” be possible to establish a friendly relationship with England, and through England with France. He hoped to bring about “a grouping of Germany, England and France against the Russia colossus which threatens the civilisation of Europe.”

Bethmann Hollweg himself often hinted darkly during the war how closely Germany had been involved in the beginning of the war. He was less concerned with the “staging” of it than to register the spirit of the German leaders who had made it possible for the war to be begun even after the premises for it had collapsed. The following bitter words are taken from his address to the Central Committee of the Reichstag at the beginning of October, 1916, during the sharp debate on the initiation of unlimited submarine warfare; they outline Germany’s real “guilt,” her constant over-estimation of her own powers, and her misjudgment of realities: 

Since the outbreak of the war we have not always avoided the danger of under-estimating the strength of our enemies. The extraordinary development of the last twenty years seduced wide circles into over-estimating our own forces, mighty as they are, in comparing them with those of the rest of the world…in our rejoicing over our own progress (we have) not paid sufficient regard to conditions in other countries.



The July crisis must not be regarded in isolation. It appears in its true light only when seen as a link between Germany’s “world policy,” as followed since the mid-1890s, and her war aims policy after August, 1914.

 

 


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page