The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century
Core study Introduction The world at the beginning of the 20th century was very different from the world today. Much of the Earth’s surface, particularly in Africa and Asia, was ruled by foreign, usually European, countries under a system called imperialism. While the agricultural economy persisted unchanged in many parts of the world, in those countries experiencing industrialisation the new economy precipitated a movement of workers from the land to the city in search of work. This increase of city-dwellers overwhelmed the existing water, sewerage and accommodation facilities, creating vast urban slums where people lived in appalling conditions and poverty. These conditions bred discontent, as well as disease, and the anarchist, socialist and trade union movements began in an attempt to improve the conditions of the working class. Where national interests clashed, conflict developed. In Asia, the Japanese built their military power to rival that of the intrusive foreigners; while the Chinese, less successfully, hit back at imperialist powers through the Boxer Rebellion. In Europe, national and military rivalries began to build until the old world and its values were swept away in the tragedy of the First World War.
6
Timeline
1871 1882 1889 1898 1899 1900 1901 1906 1907 1908 1910 1914
Germany wins Franco-Prussian war and takes the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine from France. Germany, Austria–Hungary and Italy sign the Triple Alliance. The Second International, a congress of socialists, meets in Paris. The Spanish-American War: the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico are transferred to the United States of America. Boer settlers rebel against British rule in South Africa. The Boxer Rebellion against foreign influence takes place in China. President McKinley (USA) is assassinated by an anarchist. The British Dreadnought battleship is launched; naval race with Germany begins. The Triple Entente is created between Britain, France and Russia. A commission uncovers abuses and maltreatment of tribespeople in the Belgian Congo. Japan annexes Korea. 28 June 28 July 4 August
The heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne is assassinated in Sarajevo. Austria bombards Belgrade with the opening shots of the First World War. All major European powers are at war.
Timeline exercise 1 What major leader was killed by an anarchist? 2 Which countries were members of the Triple Entente? 3 How long was the gap in time between the assassination in Sarajevo and the involvement of the major powers in the First World War? 4 When did the naval race between Britain and Germany start? 5 What Asian country was expanding its empire in 1910? 6 What country fired the first shots of the First World War? 7 Who met in Paris in 1889? 8 Which two areas of the world were in rebellion around 1900? 9 What country did the USA defeat to take possession of the Philippines? 10 What secret was revealed in 1908?
90 | Key Features of Modern History
Key ideologies and their role in the world around 1900 Imperialism Of the various ideas that affected the lives of politicians and people around the globe at the turn of the century, one of the most significant was imperialism, or the building of empires. Winning empires brought adventure and glory; their exploitation brought wealth and trade. The USA, in the Caribbean and the Pacific; Russia, on her southern and Asiatic borders; and Japan, in Formosa and the Asian mainland, were all actively expanding their empires at this time, but the greatest area of empirebuilding was Africa, where virtually the entire continent had, from around 1875, been carved up between the European powers in the ‘scramble for Africa’. Only Liberia, founded by the Americans as a home for freed slaves in 1822, and Abyssinia were not colonies of one of the European countries. Colonial rule and the treatment of the subjugated peoples varied, depending on who was governing, but some of the worst characteristics of imperialism and colonialism were observed in the tropical jungles of Africa. At this time in different parts of the world, Americans tortured and killed people, and burned villages in a counter-guerrilla war in the Philippines—over 200 000 Filipinos died of war-related hunger or disease. In Australia, Aborigines were victims of random and planned killings as the new nation was born. Around 1900, the quest for colonies and empires was seen as a great civilising mission by those who were doing the colonising. Those who were colonised could be forgiven for seeing things differently.
ALASKA
RUSSIAN EMPIRE
GREAT BRITAIN
CANADA
GERMANY
NEWFOUNDLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CUBA
MARQUESAS
TURKESTAN
ITALY 1
JAMACA
BRITISH HONDURAS
HAWAII
SAMOA TONGA
AZORES
WEST INDIES
CAPE VERDE IS.
ALGERIA 2 FRENCH WEST AFRICA
3
N
ADEN
WEIHAIWEI CHINA
JAPAN KIAOCHOW HONG KONG
INDIA
GOA
4
PORTO RICO PANAMA CAYENNE GUIANA GOLD COAST NIGERIA SURINAM
TAHITI
8 CYPRUS PERSIA 9
BURMA SIAM
INDO CHINA
MARIANA IS.
PHILIPPINES MARSHALL IS.
5 BORNEO BISMARK SOLOMON IS. SOMALILAND CYELON BELG. 6 ARCH. KENYA CONGO TIMOR GERMAN E. AFRICA NEW FIJI IS. DUTCH EAST ANGOLA HEBRIDES INDES MADAGASCAR NEW GERMAN S.W. AUSTRALIA 7 CALEDONIA MOZAMBIQUE AFRICA SOUTH AFRICA
0
3000 km
NEW ZEALAND
FALKLAND IS. 1. Malta 2. Tripoli 3. Egypt 4. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 5. Abyssinia 6. Uganda 7. Rhodesia 8. Russian Sphere 9. British Sphere
KEY British
German
Russian
American
Italian
French
Spanish
Portuguse
Dutch
Belgian
Figure 6.1 The empires in 1914—these were the source of bitter rivalry between the major powers.
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 91
D o cum e nt s t u dy: Racial at t it u des
BUSHMAN SHARES A CAGE WITH BRONX PARK APES Some laugh over his antics, but many are not pleased There was an exhibition at the Zoological Park … yesterday which had for many of the visitors something more than a provocation for laughter … ‘Something about it that I don’t like’ [said] one man … The exhibition was that of a human being in a monkey cage. The human happened to be a Bushman, one of a race that scientists do not rate high in the human scale … The human being caged was the little black man, Ota Benga, whom Prof. Verner, the explorer, recently brought to this country from the jungles of Central Africa. Prof. Verner lately handed him over to the New York Zoological Society for care and keeping. The news that the pigmy would be on exhibition augmented the Saturday afternoon crowd …
Like his fellow-lodgers, the orang outan and monkeys, Benga has a room inside the building. It opens, like the rest, into the public cage. A crowd that fluctuated between 300 and 500 persons watched the little black man amuse himself in his own way yesterday. He doesn’t like crowds, especially the children, who tease him. So he wove at the hammocks and mats which he knows how to make, jabbered at the parrot which came from the jungles with him, and shot at marks in the ample cage with his bow and arrow … A little after … noon … Benga was allowed to go into the woods. A keeper watched him from a distance. It is doubtful if any one has ever seen a happier mortal. Grabbing his bow and arrow, he jumped into
the thickest of the underbrush and frisked about. At liberty Benga seemed to live in Africa again … But the crowd soon found him and … in the end … the keeper had to send him back into the monkey house … But it was hard to keep him there. Frequently he appeared at the door and in looks not hard to understand let the keeper know that he would rather be among the trees … There has been no attempt to make Benga look grotesque. He wears white trousers and a khaki coat. Only his feet are bare. New York Times, 9 September 1906
D o c u m e n t st u dy q ue s ti o n s 1 How do you think Ota Benga came to America? 2 Describe Professor Verner’s attitude towards Benga. 3 Describe and explain the various attitudes of the crowd towards Benga. 4 How do you react to the following phrases?
(a) ‘It is doubtful if any one has ever seen a happier mortal.’
(b) ‘There has been no attempt to make Benga look grotesque.’
5 Describe the newspaper’s attitude to the exhibition. 6 What does this article tell us about racial attitudes at the beginning of the twentieth century? 7 Such an incident is unimaginable today. Why? To what extent have racial views and stereotypes changed since 1906?
94 | Key Features of Modern History
Anarchism Between 1894 and 1914 six national leaders were killed by lone assassins. The assassins believed in, and killed for, the same ideology—anarchism. Anarchists said that if there were no government, no laws, no rights to property, people would be free and happy as God intended. They argued that it was pointless trying to reform social evils because the ruling class would never give up its rights and privileges. They despised the efforts of socialists to work for reforms such as the eight-hour day, which would still leave the bosses in control. They believed that violence was the only answer—the bullet, the knife and the bomb were the tools of the anarchist. Around 1900, society was terrified of the anarchist threat as bombs were thrown in public places and anyone might have suddenly pulled out a pistol or a knife. Courts in Europe imprisoned people for proclaiming anarchism, and in 1903 the US Congress decided to ban immigrants ‘teaching disbelief in or opposition to all organized government’ (Tuchman 1997, p. 108).
President Carnot of France, 1894, was stabbed with a dagger in the stomach by a young man who dashed out of the crowd.
Premier Canovas of Spain, 1897, was shot three times by a young man while sitting on a hotel terrace reading a paper.
Empress Elizabeth of Austria–Hungary, 1898, was stabbed in the heart with a sharpened file while walking.
King Humbert of Italy, 1900, was shot four times while in his carriage by a man who rushed out from the crowd.
President McKinley of the USA,1901, was shot by a man in a receiving line of guests.
Premier Canalejas of Spain, 1912, was shot from behind while looking in a bookshop window in the street.
Figure 6.5 The celebrity victims of anarchists
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 95
Anarchism had no individual leaders and no heroes. It first emerged around 1848 and its two major prophets were Pierre Proudhon of France and Michael Bakunin, a Russian exile. Proudhon said, ‘Government of man by man is slavery’ and its laws are ‘cobwebs for the rich and chains of steel for the poor’. Bakunin added that violence was a necessary part of the anarchist’s creed. The paradox of anarchism was that anarchists rejected all forms of organisation; yet to bring about a revolution required some form of leadership and organisation. They believed that revolution would burst forth from the masses—all that was needed was a spark, and an assassination could provide that spark.
Anarchism in action The Empress Elizabeth of Austria–Hungary was the wife of Emperor Franz-Josef. Married at sixteen, she led an unhappy life at the Viennese court as she hated court ceremony and ritual. For years she escaped by travelling around Europe with her maid. In September 1898, at the age of sixty, she was staying by the lake in Geneva. Also in Geneva was Luigi Lucheni, who had been abandoned by his mother at birth. At nine years of age he became a labourer on the Italian railroad, then later served in the army before becoming unemployed. In 1897 he began to read anarchist literature and became consumed with the idea of killing someone important. When the Swiss papers announced the arrival of the Empress, he made a dagger out of an old file then confronted the Empress on a lakeside walk. Pausing only to peer under her parasol to make sure of her identity, he plunged the file into her heart. He was immediately Figure 6.6 Luigi Lucheni, the Italian anarchist, stabbed the Empress Elizabeth as she hurried to catch a boat on Lake Geneva. When later told that she had died, Lucheni replied, ‘Delighted!’ Lucheni is shown being escorted to court.
96 | Key Features of Modern History
arrested, but he was extremely pleased, declaring that he had acted ‘as part of the war on the rich and the great’. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and hanged himself in his cell in 1910.
What happened to anarchism? Anarchism did not have a long-term future as it was an ideology that drew people to follow it, but could not draw them together for concerted action. It died out as fighters for the working class realised that true progress could only come with organisation, and drifted towards the socialist or trade union movement. Within the union movement the old anarchist belief in decisive action found new expression in the notion of the general strike; those who believed in this weapon in the class war came to be known as syndicalists: from the French syndicat, or union.
R e vi e w q ue s ti o n s 1 What did anarchists believe? 2 Proudhon said that laws are ‘cobwebs for the rich and chains of steel for the poor’. What did he mean by this? 3 Why did anarchism die out? 4 Is it reasonable to ban or imprison people for what they believe? What examples of this can you think of in today’s society?
D o cum e n t st u dy: Cont rast ing liv es Source 6.1
Source 6.2
They came from the warrens of the poor, where hunger and dirt were king, where consumptives coughed and the air was thick with the smell of latrines, boiling cabbage and stale beer … where roofs leaked and unmended windows let in the cold blasts of winter, where privacy was unimaginable, where men, women, grandparents and children lived together, eating, sleeping, fornicating, defecating, sickening and dying in one room, where a teakettle served as a washboiler between meals, old boxes served as chairs, heaps of foul straw as beds, and boards propped across two crates as tables, where sometimes not all of the children in a family could go out at one time because there were not enough clothes to go round, where decent families lived among drunkards, wife-beaters, thieves and prostitutes.
The poor lived in a society where wealth and magnificent spending were never more opulent, in which the rich dined on fish, fowl and red meat at one meal, lived in houses of marble floors and damask walls and of thirty or forty or fifty rooms, wrapped themselves in furs in winter and were cared for by a retinue of servants who blacked their boots … and lit their fires.
B. Tuchman, The Proud Tower, Papermac, London, 1997.
B. Tuchman, The Proud Tower, Papermac, London, 1997.
Document st udy quest ions 1 List the different problems faced by the poor described in Source 6.1. 2 Why do you think these conditions were permitted to exist? 3 What do these passages tell you about the issues of class and wealth in European society around 1900?
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 97
Socialism Like anarchists, socialists sought to correct the ills of society that industrialisation brought upon the working classes. Socialists spoke of a class war—the ruling class and the bourgeoisie (middle class) were the enemy—and desired the abolition of private property and the redistribution of wealth to provide everybody with enough. Its goals were similar to those of anarchism, but the methods differed. Though socialists would speak of revolution it was a more organised movement, and they did not attempt to assassinate individuals or use the indiscriminate bomb-throwing tactics of the anarchists. For many socialists, the great teacher was Karl Marx, the German thinker who had written his Communist Manifesto in 1847. Marx pointed to the growth of factories in Britain and Germany as the new method of creating wealth, different from the farms and small cottage industries of the 1700s, and said that in these factories the new working class, which he called the proletariat, were victims of the wealthy industrialists. He wrote that under this system, which he called capitalism, the conditions of workers could only get worse, leading to class conflict and revolution as the workers overthrew their masters. One of the main socialist goals at the turn of the century was to shorten the working week— unskilled labourers regularly worked seven days a week and twelve hours a day. Socialists campaigned for the eight-hour day and the right to vote for every man. The goal of many socialists had always been to overthrow the existing political system; however, from 1890 in countries across Europe socialists were increasing their representation in national parliaments. The German Socialist Party was considered the torch-bearer. In the election of 1893 the The red flag—the symbol of socialism.
Karl Marx
1 May was to be an annual holiday in celebration of labour.
Important meetings: First International 1864 to coordinate attempts by workers to achieve socialism. Second International 1889
‘Workers of the world unite!’ Figure 6.7 Socialism 98 | Key Features of Modern History
Amsterdam 1905—condemned the participation of socialist parties in bourgeois coalitions. Copenhagen 1910—called for joint action by workers to prevent war.
Social Democratic Party gained 25 per cent of the vote—more than any other single party—increasing this to 35 per cent in 1912. Should socialists work within the political system in the hope of gaining power, or should they to continue to talk of revolution? This issue split the socialist movement in the early years of the century. The first convention of the International Workers of the World (IWW), which claimed it would unite the skilled and unskilled as one great union to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist society, occurred in the USA in 1905. However, when in that same year a revolution did occur in Russia, it was noted by Leon Trotsky that other European socialists showed little interest in supporting or exploiting the Russian situation. By 1910 the main issue was not social revolution but the coming war. As nationalism grew, socialists were torn between international brotherhood and patriotism. Keir Hardie, a British socialist, hoped that war would be made impossible by an international strike of the working class, but socialists in Germany and Austria opposed this. The great French socialist Jean Jaures was murdered on 31 July 1914 by a young man who condemned him as a ‘traitor’ and ‘pacifist’ for opposing the coming war. At the end of the day, the working class willingly joined their countrymen from the upper and middle classes in going to war. The foreigner was a far easier target than the ‘class enemy’.
R e vi e w q ue s ti o n s 1 In what ways was socialism similar to and different from anarchism? 2 What were the two major issues confronting socialism as the century developed? How were these issues resolved?
D o cum e n t st u dy: Ex t ract from The Co mmun is t Man ifes to Source 6.3 The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf … in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted … fight … The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonism. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones … Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat … But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more … the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class … The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution … and … the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but a prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. The Communists … openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have the world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
Document st udy quest i o n s 1 What are the ‘two great classes’ under capitalism? 2 Where does Marx expect a communist revolution to occur? 3 How many revolutions does Marx foresee before the workers obtain control? 4 What advantage does the proletariat have over other classes? 5 What is the only way of bringing about change to existing social conditions?
K. Marx & F. Engels, ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in H. Kohn (ed.), The Modern World, Macmillan, New York, 1966.
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 99
KEY
A R C T I C
Countries with alliances or agreements against Central Powers
O C E A N
Central Powers
ICELAND NORWAY
Allied to Central Powers but declared neutrality on outbreak of war
SWEDEN
Reykjavik
Neutral countries and neutral countries later aligned
FINLAND
The Balkan States are shown ringed
Kristiana Stockholm
A T L A N T I C
DENMARK
BRITAIN
O C E A N
Berlin GERMAN EMPIRE
London Paris
500
Moscow
Copenhagen
RUSSIA
Amsterdam
N
0
St Petersburg
Rome
Sardinia
Algiers Tunis
MONTE NEGRO ALBANIA
TURKEY
GREECE Sicily
S E A
Crete
PERSIA
OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Athens
Cyprus
SYRIA ARABIA
Figure 6.8 Europe in 1914 showing the position of the various allies
Though 1900 was the last year of the old century, 1914 marked the end of an era. The outbreak of the First World War changed the old world forever. Historians have long argued about the factors that caused the war and the question of responsibility for it. A summary of the major issues that students should consider follows.
Background causes to the First World War Germany’s desire for world power Germany’s power was centred in Europe rather than overseas and was tied to the strength of its army. Germany had only been united in 1871, and wished to increase its power and prestige by obtaining colonies and expanding its navy to rival that of Britain. These elements would increase Germany’s status from that of mere continental force to world power.
The Alliance system The great powers of Europe had formed links that, while intended to be basically defensive, encouraged the possibility that a quarrel between any two of the opposing powers would inevitably draw in the rest.
100 | Key Features of Modern History
C AS P I A N
IA
Gibraltar (Brit.)
ROMANIA Bucharest Sofia BULGARIA B L A C K S E A Constantinople
RB
SPAIN
Sarajévo
SE
Madrid
PORTUGAL Lisbon
BOSNIA
FRANCE Corsica
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE
Vienna Belgrade
Alsace Lorraine
1000 km
Warsaw POLAND
German support for Austria–Hungary Germany supported Austria–Hungary’s annexation of Bosnia–Herzegovina in 1908, disregarding Russian protest. Also, Germany warned against Russia mobilising on Serbia’s behalf in 1912, when Serbia moved to defend its interests against Austro-Hungarian expansion. Each time, Russia, despite its cultural, religious and political links with Serbia, had to back down humiliated. Germany felt that if the Balkan wave of nationalism, of which Serbia was a part, succeeded in creating small independent countries in the region, it would break up the Austro-Hungarian empire—Germany’s only effective European ally.
The arms race France, Germany and Russia all built up huge peacetime armies after about 1910. The naval race between Britain and Germany stretched the resources of both nations and increased mutual tensions.
ALLIANCES AND TERMS (contracts) 1879 Dual alliance: Germany + Austria–Hungary Mutual assistance if either were attacked by Russia and for benevolent neutrality if either were attacked by another power.
BALANCE OF POWER
1882
Triple alliance: Germany + Austria-Hungary + Italy Italy would remain neutral in a war between Russia and Austria–Hungary. Germany and Austria–Hungary would assist Italy if it was attacked by France. Italy would help Germany and Austria–Hungary if they were attacked by at least two powers.
1894 Franco–Russian: France + Russia Russia would aid France if attacked by Germany or Germany/Italy. France would aid Russia if attacked by Germany or Germany/Austria–Hungary.
1902 Anglo-Japanese: Britain + Japan Britain recognised Korea as an area of Japanese influence and mutual assistance in the event of war.
ENTENTES AND TERMS (understandings) 1912 Anglo-French naval agreement Britain would secure the North Sea and the English Channel while France patrolled the Mediterranean.
1904 Entente Cordiale: France + Britain French special interests in Morocco were recognised by Britain. France accepted British control in Egypt.
1907 Triple Entente: France + Britain + Russia Created through previous agreements between these powers.
German Fears of Encirclement
1914 July Days Figure 6.9 The Alliances—preserving security
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 101
Nationalism among the great powers The Pan-German League and Navy League wanted to increase the expansion of Germany. France wanted revenge for the loss of Alsace–Lorraine in 1871. The British public was certain that Germany was the enemy. British literature was quick to use Germany as the enemy in its plots. Russia wanted to regain prestige after its loss to Japan in the 1904–05 war.
The July days On 28 June 1914 the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Serbian terrorist group called the ‘Black Hand’. For the next three weeks there was little sign that Europe was moving toward a crisis, as politicians and public alike took advantage of excellent weather across the continent to enjoy their summer holidays. What is clear is that the AustroHungarian government saw an opportunity to punish Serbia and save the empire. The need to find out where Germany stood if Russia supported the Serbs caused a delay. The answer came with the famous ‘blank cheque’ on 6 July when the Kaiser pledged Germany to stand by Austria–Hungary.
DID YOU KNOW? The car in the picture below, complete with bullet hole, and the Archduke’s bloodied uniform, are preserved in the Army Museum in Vienna. There is almost no mention of Sophie!
Eventually, on 23 July, Austria–Hungary delivered an ultimatum to Serbia with a time limit of forty-eight hours. From this point on, events moved quickly. Serbia accepted all but one clause of the ultimatum, that which required them to allow AustroHungarian officials to participate in the inquiry into the assassination. Nevertheless, the AustroHungarians declared that as the ultimatum had not been accepted in full, it had been rejected. On 28 July the Austro-Hungarians began the bombardment of Belgrade, the Serbian capital.
Figure 6.10 Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, leaving Sarajevo Town Hall. Within minutes they were dead.
102 | Key Features of Modern History
After several days of military preparation and debate, Russia declared a general troop mobilisation, including those on the border with Germany. Germany sent an ultimatum on 31 July demanding the withdrawal of these troops and also sent an enquiry to Paris regarding the intentions of the French. The die was cast when Russia did not reply to the ultimatum. Germany, committed to the Schlieffen Plan in the event of war (see Chapter 8), refused the British request to respect Belgian neutrality, and when France stated vaguely that it would ‘follow its own interests’, on 1 August, Germany took action in accord with the Schlieffen Plan. The violation of Belgian neutrality greatly influenced the British decision to go to war. Already committed by prior naval agreements to guarding France’s northern coastline, Britain was given the excuse to enter the war by the clear violation of Belgium’s neutrality in the face of an international agreement signed by Germany in 1839. The First World War had begun.
Figure 6.11 Gavrilo Princip. Being only nineteen, he was too young to be executed. He died in prison from tuberculosis in April 1918.
D o cum e n t st u dy: Res p onsibilit y fo r the Fi rs t Wo rld War
Germany’s responsibility Fritz Fischer, writing in the 1960s, argued that Germany provoked war and ensured that compromise was impossible. Germany had economic problems; however, it was convinced of its own military strength and was ready to use war to achieve its aims. Thus, German leaders encouraged Austria– Hungary between 6 and 8 July to frame an ultimatum, which was meant to be rejected. War was also necessary because of the encirclement of Germany by the Triple Entente. Given these considerations, it appears logical that Kaiser Wilhelm II believed that it was ‘now or never’ and thus the ‘blank cheque’ was issued.
Source 6.4 The other way in which Germany was exerting pressure on Austria was by insisting that the ultimatum to Serbia should be couched in terms so strong as to make acceptance impossible. 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. F. Fischer in D. E. Lee (ed.), The Outbreak of the First World War, D.C. Heath & Co., Lexington, USA, 1975.
D o c u m e n t st udy q ue s ti o n List the reasons why Fischer attempts to blame Germany for the outbreak of war.
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 103
Imanuel Geiss, writing in 1967, also took up this position by emphasising the role of Germany’s imperial aims in creating the tension in Europe. The industrialists wanted overseas expansion so that their raw materials and markets could be secured. Germany had a huge merchant fleet and led the world in chemical and electrical industries. To maintain this position, expansion was essential. However, expansion was being blocked by Britain, which was also fighting for sustainable economic growth. This was not the only problem for Germany. Geiss points out that a successful expansionist policy would solve domestic and political problems by taking the minds of the population off them. The power of the government was under attack by socialist politicians, who wanted a more responsible government. Geiss believed that the German elite felt compelled to defend themselves against these democratic and revolutionary forces.
Source 6.5 The logical consequence was the concept of preventive war. Objectively, German fears were unfounded. But the more Russia recovered her former military strength after her defeat at the hands of Japan and the revolution of 1904–5, the more urgently the idea of preventive war was formulated in Germany. I. Geiss in D. E. Lee (ed.), The Outbreak of the First World War, D.C Heath & Co., Lexington, USA, 1975.
Document st udy quest ion In your opinion, does the concept of a preventive war, as used by Geiss, justify Germany’s actions?
Germany risked war, but did not plan it This position was a response to Fischer’s argument and essentially attempted to explain away Germany’s responsibility. Egmont Zechlin, writing in 1964, believed that Germany was ready to accept the risk that war would eventually break out, but had no desire to provoke it. The Germans had a real fear of being surrounded by the hostile Entente powers, which, they believed, had become a reality during the July crisis of 1914. Thus the ‘blank cheque’ was a reaction to many fears and could not be considered as aggression. Indeed, Bethmann-Hollweg, the German Chancellor, hoped for a limited war. The First World War was therefore a preventive defensive war for Germany. Gerhard Ritter, writing in 1971, believed that Germany did not want war but was overwhelmed by events. Germany’s actions in the July crisis were defensive, and, to a large extent, it was led on by Austria–Hungary. According to Ritter, the German leaders believed that war with Russia was inevitable. Despite this, their use of power in 1914 did not necessarily mean that Germany wanted or planned for war. Karl Erdmann, writing in the 1980s, believed that there was no real evidence of military planning after 1911. Indeed, Austria–Hungary did not act quickly enough after the assassination and it was left to Bethmann-Hollweg to attempt to localise the conflict. Germany considered that Britain would not remain neutral, but tried sincerely to achieve this neutrality and thus prevent a world war. Erdmann uses the diaries of Dr K. Riezler, a companion of Bethmann-Hollweg, to attempt to disprove the aggressive nature of German foreign policy. He believes that the chancellor wanted to avoid war and support Austria–Hungary by attempting to divide the Entente powers through bluff. He hoped that Russia would back down. If not, the conflict could not be localised.
104 | Key Features of Modern History
Source 6.6 Neither was the wish for territorial gains a motive of Bethmann-Hollweg’s policy before and during the July crisis. In his private talks with Riezler, there is no hint which points in this direction, in contrast to the extensive reflections on war aims in the diaries of later date, once the war had started. The formulation of territorial war aims is a product of the war, but not its cause.
Document st udy quest ions 1 How does Erdmann argue against the total responsibility of Germany for the outbreak of the war? 2 What weaknesses are there in the fact that Erdmann relies on Riezler as his source?
K. Erdmann in D. E. Lee (ed.), The Outbreak of the First World War, D.C Heath & Co., Lexington, USA, 1975.
All countries bear some responsibility Joachim Remak, writing in 1971, regarded the First World War as the third Balkan war, which got out of control. The Russian mobilisation meant that a localised war was impossible. Serbia was too aggressive and acted under the belief that the stakes were worth the risk. France was not reconciled to the loss of Alsace–Lorraine in 1871, and made no real attempt to restrain Russia. Germany blundered by giving the ‘blank cheque’ to Austria–Hungary, which in turn was in reckless pursuit of prestige, and so it was intended that the ultimatum should be rejected; Austria–Hungary, too, believed that the risk of war with Russia was worth the gains. The historians A. J. P. Taylor and Martin Gilbert pointed to other factors. According to Taylor, Russia had to mobilise fully because of its limited amount of rolling stock. If Russia opted for limited mobilisation and a general war broke out, its military situation would have been disastrous as it could not have moved troops up to the front. Gilbert believed that Austria–Hungary’s Foreign Minister, Berchtold, was keen for war. Germany, despite its fear of Russia, opted for war as it considered the timing to be to its benefit and Bethmann-Hollweg did little to prevent its outbreak. Russia wanted revenge for its humiliation at the hands of Germany in 1909 and 1912. Russia was given its own ‘blank cheque’ by France when Poincaré, the prime minister, was in St Petersburg between 20 and 23 July. The military considerations of the Russians and the Germans thus prevented the last minute efforts of Grey, the foreign minister, to avert war.
Source 6.7 Of course, so was everybody right, and one wishes that Versailles had never introduced the concept of guilt. Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was right in fearing isolation, Great Britain in fearing German power. Everyone was right. And everyone was wrong, for no one foresaw what war would mean, either in terms of costs or of consequences. All were sinners, all were sinned against. J. Remak in D. E. Lee (ed.), The Outbreak of the First World War, D.C Heath & Co., Lexington, USA, 1975.
Writing in 1984, James Joll starts with the July crisis. Immediate decisions were made by the politicians with all their human weaknesses. These decisions were, of course, influenced by their context. The politicians were pressured by recent events as well as diplomatic deals made many years before. Public opinion supported the declaration of war because the politicians had ensured that the issues had been popularised on an emotional level, playing on the various national traditions, myths and legends. War was not seen as something to be avoided; rather, it fitted the national mood of 1914.
The World at the Beginning of the 20th Century | 105
Source 6.8
Source 6.9
The building of the German navy … led to the creation of a body of nationalist opinion and the development of an aggressive imperialist rhetoric which contributed to making war seem acceptable and even desirable. The existence of such a body of opinion was one of the factors which the German government between 1911 and 1914 had to take into account.
Armaments bred armaments; and an armaments program once started was not easy to stop, for its reversal could have wide social and economic consequences … German ambitions. Russian expansionism, British and Austro-Hungarian fears and French revenge had created a position where compromise would be seen as a selling-out of national pride and interests. For countries such as Germany, Russia and Britain war was a choice that could relieve domestic pressure. For Germany the socialists’ power could be curtailed; for Russia, loyalty to the regime could be restored among the working class, and for Britain, the delicate and difficult Irish Question could diminish in importance.
J. Joll, The Origins of the First World War, Longman, London, 1984.
J. Joll, The Origins of the First World War, Longman, London, 1984.
D o c u m e n t st u dy q ue s ti o n Germany has been blamed for the outbreak of war. How does Joll disagree with this view?
Re vi e w ta sk
Imagine that you are a neutral journalist in Europe in 1914. Write an article for publication in a neutral country in which you explain why the war broke out, and what and who was responsible. Use the ideas of the historians who support your opinions.
References A. Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1998 B. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World before the War, 1890–1914, Papermac, London, 1997
106 | Key Features of Modern History
