The History Book Club discussion

This is a thread to discuss the part any and all of the "isms" may have played in World War I.

This particular url has some great information on militarism, colonialism, imperialism, and nationalism as they all relate to World War I. And of course all of the various alliances played a key role in the start of World War I.

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/wwi/ind...

by John Keegan

MILITARISM

Militarism denoted a rise in military expenditure, an increase in military and naval forces, more influence of the military men upon the policies of the civilian government, and a preference for force as a solution to problems. Militarism was one of the main causes of the First World War.

Increase in military control of the civilian government

After 1907, there was an increase in military influence on policy making. This could be reflected particularly in Germany and Russia. The German Army at this period was called a "State within the State". The parliament and the politicians had to follow the General Staff. They had no say in the army's design to preserve the Fatherland. Even though the Schlieffen Plan would incur the anger of Great Britain and bring the latter into a war, it was accepted by the German civilian government as the war plan. In 1914, the Russian generals were also able to force the Czar to accept full mobilization. They threatened him with the danger of defeat if he acted contrarily.

Arms race

After 1871, the war atmosphere engendered by the secret alliances led to an armaments race among the powers. The race was particularly serious between 1900 and 1914, as the international situation became much worse than before. There was a significant rise in the army and naval estimates of the European powers in these years.

It is also important to take notice of the fact that from 1910 to 1914, while France increased her defence expenditure by 10%, Britain by 13%, Russia by 39%, and Germany was the most militaristic as she increased by 73%. Increased war expenditure enabled all the powers to raise more armies and improve their battleships.

Military Rivalry

Army conscription
All the Continental European powers had adopted the conscription system since 1870. France had conscription since the Revolutionary Wars, Austria-Hungary since 1868, Germany since 1870, Italy since 1873 and Russia since 1874. Only Britain did not have conscription. After 1890, the deteriorating diplomatic relations among the powers accelerated their military expansion programme.

From 1913 to July 1914, Germany increased her standing forces by 170,000 men. France lengthened her period of military service from two to three years. Russia lengthened her term of service from three to three and a half years. Britain did not introduce conscription but had prepared her armed forces for both European expedition and for home defence. In general, all the powers increased their stocks of arms, produced more modern weapons of war and built more strategic railways.

Naval Race Between Germany and Britain

Britain and Germany were the chief rivals at sea. Under Admiral Tirpitz, State Secretary of the Imperial Naval Office from 1897, a long-term shipbuilding programme began. The German Navy Law of 1898 increased the German battleships from nine cruisers to twelve. In 1900 Germany passed a Navy Law which doubled the German battle fleet.

In the meantime, Britain produced her first Dreadnought (literally, the word means fear nothing). Dreadnoughts were large, fast and heavily armed battleships with 12inch guns. They set a new standard in naval armaments and rendered all previous battleships obsolete. The naval race became intense. Between 1909 and 1911 Germany built nine Dreadnoughts while Britain completed 18 Dreadnoughts. In 1913, Germany widened the Kiel Canal to allow the easy passage of her Dreadnoughts from the Baltic to the North Sea while Britain built new naval bases for the Dreadnoughts in northern Scotland.

Effects

Increased military and naval rivalry led not only to the belief that war was coming (The German ruling group felt that only through a war could Germany become a world power. Military preparations strengthened this belief.) and increase in military control of the civilian government (particularly in Germany and Russia) also increased cooperation among the military staff of the countries of the same camp. For example, all the three Entente powers held secret military talks. The British and the French naval authorities agreed that the French navy should be concentrated in the Mediterranean and the British in the North Sea. Germany and Austria also had military agreements. When the First World War was fought, it was to be fought by all powers because they had made the military plan cooperatively.

As a result of the armaments race, all the European powers were prepared for a war by 1914.

Source for all of the above:

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/wwi/mil...

NATIONALISM

National Rivalries

Two Kinds of Nationalism

There were two kinds of nationalism in 19th Century Europe:

(i) the desire of subject peoples for independence -

It led to a series of national struggles for independence among the Balkan peoples. Other powers got involved and caused much instability.

(ii) the desire of independent nations for dominance and prestige -

As the powers try to dominate each other in Europe, their rivalries may be regarded as one of the causes of the First World War.

Nationalism in Germany

Germany was united in 1871 as a result of the Franco-Prussian War, and she rapidly became the strongest economic and military power in Europe. From 1871 to 1890, Germany wanted to preserve her hegemony in Europe by forming a series of peaceful alliances with other powers. After 1890, Germany was more aggressive. She wanted to build up her influence in every part of the world.

German foreign policy in these years was best expressed by the term 'Weltpolitik' (World Politics). Because German ambitions were extended to many parts of the globe, Germany came into serious conflicts with all other major powers of Europe (except Austria-Hungary) from 1890 to 1914.

Nationalism in Italy

Italy was unified in 1870. She was barely powerful enough to be counted as a great power. Her parliamentary system was corrupt and inefficient. Her industrial progress was slow. But Italy had great territorial ambitions. She wanted Tunis and Tripoli in northern Africa. This brought her into conflicts with France because Tunis was adjacent to the French colony, Algeria, and was long regarded by France as French sphere of influence. Italy also wanted Italia Irredenta--Trieste, Trentio and Tyrol. Although the majority of the people in these places were Italians, they were kept under the rule of the Dual Monarchy . Thus Italy came into serious conflicts with Austria-Hungary.

Nationalism in Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary was established as the Dual Monarchy in 1867. The Dual Monarchy ruled over a large empire consisting of many nationalities, but only the Austrians (racially they were German) and the Hungarians had the right to rule. The other nationalities Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Rumanians and Poles resented their loss of political freedom. They desired for political independence. Thus the policy of the Dual Monarchy was to suppress the nationalist movements both inside and outside the empire. The particular object of the Dual Monarchy was to gain political control over the Balkan Peninsula, where nationalist movements were rife and were always giving encouragement to the nationalist movements within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The centre of the nationalist movements in the Balkans was Serbia. Serbia always hoped to unite with the Serbs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire so as to create a large Serbian state. Therefore the first enemy of Austria-Hungary from 1871 to 1914 was Serbia. Besides Serbia, Austria-Hungary also hated Russia because Russia, being a Slav country, always backed up Serbia in any Austro-Serbian disputes.

Nationalism in Russia

Russia was the largest and most populous country in Europe. It extended from the shores of the Arctic Ocean to those of the Black Sea and from the Baltic Sea eastwards to the Pacific Ocean. Two thirds of her people were Slavs. She was still territorially ambitious. She wanted to expand in all directions. In 1870, Russia broke the Treaty of Paris and renewed her aggression in the Balkans.

Thus, her territorial ambitions clashed with the interests of Austria-Hungary and Britain. However, Russia did not retreat. Being a 'landlocked' state, she wanted to acquire warm water ports in the Balkans (e.g. Constantinople). Moreover, as most of the Balkan peoples were of the Slavic race, Russia could claim to be the protector of her brother races in her expansion.

Note: Treaty of Paris and Russia

In 1856, Russia was defeated by Britain and France in the Crimean War. She was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris, which stopped her expansion into the Balkans from 1856 to 1870. Britain wanted to establish her influence in the Balkans because the Balkan area borders the Mediterranean Sea. lf Russia controlled the Balkan area, British naval power and trade in the Mediterranean Sea would be threatened.

Nationalism in France

France had been the dominant power in Europe for centuries. Napoleon I and Napoleon III had attempted to dominate Europe. In 1871, France was defeated by Germany. She had to lose two provinces: Alsace and Lorraine. She also needed to pay heavy indemnities. From 1871 onwards, France's greatest ambition was to recover Alsace and Lorraine from Germany. She also wanted to prevent another defeat by Germany, to recover her national prestige by acquiring overseas colonies (e.g. Morocco) and to make diplomatic alliances with other important powers in Europe.

Nationalism in Britain

In 1870 Britain was the most industrially advanced country in Europe. She also possessed the largest overseas empire and the largest navy in the world. She did not want to trouble herself with the continental affairs of Europe. Her main concern was to preserve her overseas empire and her overseas trade by maintaining a large navy. Before 1890, her chief enemies were France and Russia. The colonial interests of France often clashed with those of Britain . (Britain and France had colonial rivalries in Asia and Africa--for example, India, Burma, Thailand, Egypt.)
Russia's interest in the Balkan area also alarmed Britain, as British naval interests in the Mediterranean Sea would be immediately threatened. After 1890, as Germany went on increasing her naval strength and threatened British naval supremacy and the British overseas interests, she became Britain's chief enemy.

Source for all of the above:

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/wwi/ind...

COLONIALISM AND COLONIAL RIVALRIES

Colonial Rivalries

After 1870, the European nations began to acquire colonies in Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Their imperialistic activities accelerated from 1880 onwards. Between 1895 and 1905 imperialistic expansion reached its climax.

Colonial rivalry was a cause of the First World War.

First of all, colonial rivalry led to strained relations among the European powers. In Africa, all the European powers except Austria and Russia had colonies there.

Thus there were many clashes among France, Britain, Germany and Italy. For example, France rivalled with Italy over Tunis and with Germany over Morocco.

Secondly, colonial rivalry led indirectly to the formation and strengthening of alliances and ententes. Italy turned to Germany and Austria when she lost Tunis to France in 1881. Russia and Britain could patch up their differences and form an entente in 1907 as a result of their mutual fear of Germany's expansionist activities in the Balkans. Russia, Britain and France could become firm friends after 1907 partly because of aggressive attitude of Germany in both the first and the second Moroccan crises.

Thirdly, colonial rivalry led to an intensification of the arms race. As mentioned earlier, in 1896 Dr. Jameson made a raid into the Dutch Republic of Transvaal in South Africa. Germany found that, without a navy, she could not send much military help to the Dutch. Shortly after the event, Admiral von Tirpitz, the German Minister of Marine, proclaimed the need of a strong navy. From 1898 onwards, Germany built more battleships.

Fourthly, colonial rivalry led to much hostility among the powers. In the first and the second Moroccan crises, war nearly resulted. France and Britain nearly came to war over their rivalry in the Sudan in 1898.

A Minor Cause

But after 1905 colonial issues became less important as the powers turned back to Europe and Europe remained their centre of rivalry. As stated earlier, from 1904 to 1907, Britain, France and Russia were able to settle their colonial disputes by the Anglo-French Entente and the Anglo-Russian Entente. By 1914 colonial disputes had greatly diminished. Thus colonial rivalry had little to do with the outbreak of the First World War.

Note: I think I disagree that colonialism was a minor cause; I think the colonies expanded the war exponentially and made the countries involved more incensed to keep what they had and/or to acquire more of the spoils.

Source for all of the above:

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/wwi/col...

IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is when a country increases their power and wealth by bringing additional territories under their control.

Before World War 1, Africa and parts of Asia were points of contention amongst the European countries.

This was especially true because of the raw materials these areas could provide. The increasing competition and desire for greater empires led to an increase in confrontation that helped push the world into World War I

Note: Colonialism and Imperialism are very much related and pretty much the same.

CAUSES OF WORLD WAR: Imperialism, Arms Races, Industry, Nationalism, and Alliances

http://www.associatedcontent.com/arti...

THE GREAT WAR: THE CAUSES (NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM, BISMARCK AND ALLIANCES, COLLAPSE OF BISMARCKIAN ALLIANCES, ARMS RACE, CRISES IN AFRICA, BOSNIAN CRISIS OF 1908, MOROCCO II, ASSASSINATION AT SARAJEVO, FALLING DOMINOES)

http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsil...

WORLD WAR I AND THE ISMS:

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/ca...

CAUSES OF WORLD WAR I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_o...

Alliance System as a cause of the War

The alliance systems were a cause of the First World War.

Firstly, the alliances were made in secret and so produced much distrust and suspicion among the European powers. Their general suspicion prevented their diplomats to devise a suitable solution to many of the crises preceding the war.

Secondly, the alliances were always made on a war-footing and so heightened the war tension and led to an arms race among the European powers. For example, within four years after the formation of the Triple Entente in 1907, Germany built nine dreadnoughts (battleships) and consequently Britain built eighteen. Thus all the European powers were ready for war in 1914.

Thirdly, since the European powers had made alliances with one another, a small dispute concerning one power might lead to a war involving all powers.

Fourthly, the alliances were originally strictly defensive but by 1910, many alliances had changed their character. The Austro-German alliance of 1879 was so modified that it had become an aggressive alliance after the Bosnian crisis in 1909, the German government promised to give military aid to Austria-Hungary, if Austria invaded Serbia and Russia intervened on behalf of the latter. As alliances had become instruments of national aggression, the chances of war doubled.

Fifthly, after the formation of the Triple Entente, Germany began to feel the threat to her security. The German press loudly talked about "encirclement", i.e. being surrounded by enemies on all sides. This induced the aggressive William II to pursue a more vigorous foreign policy in an attempt to break the unity of the Entente powers. This resulted in a series of international crises from 1905 to 1914.

Source for all of the above:

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/wwi/all...

Colonialism

Most of the major powers in WWI depended on troops from their colonies which were often non-white. This book examines how France dealt with racism within the ranks.

Race and War in France; Colonial Subjects in the French Army, 1914-1918

(no photo)

Synopsis:

During the First World War, the French army deployed more than 500,000 colonial subjects to European battlefields. The struggle against a common enemy associated these soldiers with the French nation, but racial and cultural differences left them on the outside. This study investigates French conceptions of race and national identity at the time as reflected in the attitudes and policies directed toward these soldiers.

How far did French egalitarianism extend in welcoming and disciplining nonwhite troops? Using the experiences of African and Asian colonial soldiers, Richard S. Fogarty examines how tensions between racial prejudices and strong traditions of republican universalism and egalitarianism resulted in often contradictory and paradoxical policies. Employing a socially and culturally integrated approach to the history of warfare that connects military and political policies with the society and culture in which they developed, Fogarty presents a fresh picture of how the French came to deal with race relations, religious differences, and French identity itself.

Nationalism

We saw nationalism spreading during and immediately after WWI.....this book deals with the phenomena.

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism

by Benedict Anderson

Synopsis:

What makes people love and die for nations, as well as hate and kill in their name? While many studies have been written on nationalist political movements, the sense of nationality--the personal and cultural feeling of belonging to a nation--has not received proportionate attention. In this widely acclaimed work, Benedict Anderson examines the creation and global spread of the 'imagined communities' of nationality.

Anderson explores the processes that created these communities: the territorialization of religious faiths, the decline of antique kingship, the interaction between capitalism and print, the development of vernacular languages-of-state, and changing conceptions of time. He shows how an originary nationalism born in the Americas was modularly adopted by popular movements in Europe, by the imperialist powers, and by the anti-imperialist resistances in Asia and Africa.

This revised edition includes two new chapters, one of which discusses the complex role of the colonialist state's mindset in the develpment of Third World nationalism, while the other analyses the processes by which, all over the world, nations came to imagine themselves as old.

Imperialism

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Synopsis:

'Globalisation' is the buzzword of the 1990s. VI Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism was one of the first attempts to account for the increasing importance of the world market in the twentieth century. Originally published in 1916, Imperialism explains how colonialism and the First World War were inherent features of the global development of the capitalist economy.

In a new introduction, Norman Lewis and James Malone contrast Lenin's approach with that adopted by contemporary theories of globalisation. They argue that, while much has changed since Lenin wrote, his theoretical framework remains the best method for understanding recent global developments

The Road to Verdun: World War I's Most Momentous Battle and the Folly of Nationalism

by Ian Ousby (no photo)

Synopsis:

On February 21, 1916, the Germans launched a surprise offensive at Verdun, an important fortress in northeastern France, sparking a brutal and protracted conflict that would claim more than 700,000 victims. The carnage had little impact on the course of the war, and Verdun ultimately came to symbolize the absurdity and horror of trench warfare.

Ian Ousby offers a radical reevaluation of this cataclysmic battle, arguing that the French bear tremendous responsibility for the senseless slaughter. He shows how the battle’s roots lay in the Franco-Prussian war and how its legacy helped lay the groundwork for World War II. Merging intellectual substance with superb battle writing, The Road to Verdun is a moving and incisive account of one of the most important battles of the twentieth century.

About the Author:

Ian Ousby was the author of several books, including The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English and Occupation: The Ordeal of France 1940—1944, which won the 1997 Edith McLeod Literary Prize, given annually to the British book that has “contributed the most to Franco-British understanding,” and the 1997 Stern Silver PEN Award for Nonfiction. He passed away in August 2001.

Reviews:

“A brilliant study... a tender and beautifully worked reappraisal of the battle and the implications of Verdun.”
–Scotsman

“Studded with quotable and memorable descriptions of the horrors of the battle.”
–Times (London)

“A clear and vivid account of both the military and the political intricacy of the battle.”
–Saturday Times (London)