What were the incendiary forces of the first Great War?
Intricate Alliances
Alliances are made ostensibly to bolster
national security against threats. This is sometimes referred to as external
balancing. Pakistan allied itself in West-sponsored military pacts, to baulk the
threat perception from India, veritable or not, that is not the focus of this
piece. The Europeans made alliances galore,
especially after the unification of Italy and Germany. In 1873, Bismarck enunciated the Three
Emperors’ League of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. After strenuous efforts
to keep the cleavages between Russia and Austria-Hungary, the Three Emperors
League broke in 1890. Soon, Austria and Germany came closer. In fact, the
Germans and Austrians had hobnobbed way back in 1879. Russia was seething in
frustration. Soon, we saw the emergence of the infamous Triple Alliance with
the inclusion of Italy. The Triple
Alliance panned-out in favour of Bismarck. He was thus able to kill two birds
with one stone. Firstly, the induction
of Italy was a death knell for France, owing to rivalry over Tunis and
secondly, it strengthened German alliance system. (Mahajan 1965) If these countries were thinking, that their
alliance would go unnoticed, then they were utterly wrong. Russia, after getting a rough deal from their
previous entanglement, groped for other allies. In short, Russia entered into
an alliance with France in 1893-94. Soon, Britain and France signed the Entente
Cordiale; this treaty tried to mitigate the rivalries caused by imperialism. With the Anglo-Russian alliance, the Triple
Entente came into being. So there were two camps prior to war. Germany, Austria-Hungary , Turkey and Italy
was in one camp, whilst, Britain, Russia, France and Japan were in the other.
There is no need to further delve into these alliances. Let’s analyze the
significance of the alliances as a cause of this war. At the most these alliances,
all by themselves were able to give a feeling of war. Indeed, there were
intra-European tensions; the alliances had delineated friends and foes. The only reason that the alliance system
caused war is that, since the camps were pitched against each other, they were
looking for excuses to fight; a snowfall or a domino effect certainly worked. Perhaps,
the allies pushed each other for launching attacks; like Germany was
encouraging Austria post June 1914. However, I beg to differ with those who
give primacy to this cause. Alliances are made to bolster one’s capability
against an enemy or a bloc of enemies: NATO and Warsaw is an archetypical
example. Alliances are made either to deter opponents from launching war, or in
case of war, giving the ability to fight. The alliances were fostered to
enhance power and isolate France, in case of Germany. Russia allied itself,
owing to the fact that it was literally ousted by Germany/Austria from the
Three Emperors’ League. Similarly, France had her own reasons to cobble-up.
Mere alliances can possibly do nothing; they have to be backed up by arms and
ammunitions and perhaps a genuine Casus belli. Scepticism, paranoia and
gimmicks of diplomacy caused these groupings. Indirect war mongering, arms
race, especially between England and France; imperial rivalries in Africa and
the Middle East were other factors, which contributed towards war. Alliances
were ostensibly made to thwart the impending threats; these surreptitious
hobnobs advanced the war, but did not initiate it. And even otherwise,
alliances are formed after enmities.
Imperialism
We often talk about and find out, the bone
of contention between states. In the Indo-China scenario, we single out the
NEFA and Sikhim crisis as an apple of discord, for instance. Certainly, the
scramble for colonies was a stumbling block in intra-European relations. I
would say that the Scramble for Africa was the major bickering point. Some
rivalries originated from the quest for imperial expansion. As Kissinger pointed
out “the new Austro-Hungarian Empire had no place to expand except into the
Balkans. Inherent in this policy was conflict with Russia.” (Kissinger 1994) We
see that, frictions were caused by overseas expansion. Italy was averse to France because of a stake
in Tunis as aforementioned. Foreign
lands were used to extend European rivalries. There are instances galore, which
could have erupted in major spats. The infamous Fashoda crisis took place in
1898 just near the Nile River. Both, Captain Merchand and Kitchener diffused
the situation sagaciously, though. After this incident, both countries came
that close to each other, that an Entente was reached, which culminated in the
Triple Entente. Germany, after the epoch
of Bismarck became Britain-centric, to say the least; imperialism was used to
good effect against England. The Kruger Telegram must have irked Britain.
Kaiser took the incendiary step of writing a congratulatory letter to Kruger on
ousting British sorties from Transvaal in the Boer War. Serious tensions
emerged between Russia and Austria after the Bosnian Crisis. There were other
imperialism-related fissures; however, they need to be discussed here. Why was
imperialism one of the causes of war? Indeed, as aforementioned, penny and
penny make up many. Imperialism in certain cases, generated rivalries, and
while in others simply exacerbated them. The Anglo-German rivalry augmented due
to the so-called Scramble for Africa. Certainly, I will not deem this as the
most significant cause of war. Conflicts over colonies were localized, and were
sorted-out; in fact, we saw hostilities turning into friendship (Anglo-French).
All those disputes were papered-over amicably; even if we the Kruger Telegram,
we can’t gauge the impact with precision. Imperialism certainly added to fury,
but still there were a host of other factors, which conflagrated the situation,
to include arms race. People attribute arms race to imperialism, however, I
take it differently; arms build-up was initiated by Kaiser as a continuation of
German bellicosity; Britain had to follow suit.
Arms Race
At the heart of any military lies arms and
ammunition. Offensive realists rename balance of power as balance of military
power. (Griffiths 2007). As of this writing, the most intense arms race is seen
in the Indo-Pak theatre, but it has ushered in a semblance of strategic
stability. We cannot compare this arms race with that of the England and
France, for nuclear weapons have brought new concepts, to include deterrence
and stability-instability paradox, which need not be sifted upon here. The concept of security dilemma can
explain the fierce naval rivalry between England and Germany. William 11 outlined the German policy in these
words: “Germany’s future lies upon the
water.” (Mahajan 1965) Kaiser deputed Tirpitz to manufacture Trident; this was
seen with scepticism by the British. Soon, a fierce race began. British Naval
expansion was in response to the hawkish attitude of William 11. The naval race
was the main corollary of the arms race prior to World War 1. Conciliatory missions
flunked to stop the process; only a trigger was needed to put these weapons on
the FDL’s. The Dreadnought was built by both countries with impunity, to say
the least.
As mentioned above, arms race brings about
a few things as offshoots. The concept of security dilemma states that, a
country’s security will only be bolstered by endangering the security of the
adversary. Certainly, the security dilemma was an element to consider pre 1914;
both the great power tried to outnumber each other qualitatively and
quantitatively. What the arms race did was not only to instigate a fresh patina
of animosity, but to give strength to both camps to fight when the time comes.
Indeed, the contribution of the frenzy for arms is more than the previous two
causes. Alliances made two separate blocs, and the acquisition of weapons,
provided those blocs something to fight with. The wherewithal of war was
complete; a small incident was needed to start a colossal war. The induction of arms in the cache was one of
the major causes of the First Great War, for it aggravated paranoia and make a
warrior his toolkit. However, the way these weapons were proposed to be used at
the strategic and tactical level, also brought about war.
Conceptual/Attitudinal /Philosophical reasons
As a layman in sociology and philosophy, I
don’t have much to speak about. However, I can read a warrior’s mind. War is
caused by the bellicose attitude of human beings. The international system has,
in my opinion has no room for morality and all liberalism-related concepts. It
is a brutal system, typified with anarchy, balance of power and the primacy of
power and national interests. War cannot
be resisted when war mongering is at its peak. Austria-Hungary was groping for
power after becoming an independent Empire; Austrian policies not only provoke
Balkan nationalism, but also made Russia a perpetual enemy. Let’s try and focus on the mindset of the
Germans at length. Germany was obsessed with power, ever since the unification;
it left no stone unturned to enhance power and preponderance. Bismarck strengthened
Germany through benign diplomacy, by
making alliances, to include the Triple alliance. He succeeded in thwarting the
French threat by isolating France. The adept diplomacy of Bismarck was
supplanted by the hawkish and jingoistic policies of William II. At first, he
did not try to address Russian scepticism regarding Austria, which resulted in
Russia’s parting of ways. “German leaders after Bismarck threatened every other
European nation with absolute insecurity, triggering countervailing coalitions
nearly automatically. There were no diplomatic shortcuts to domination; the
only route that leads to it is war.” (Kissinger 1994) one can corroborate this
claim further by citing German nefarious activities in South Africa (Kruger
Telegram); refusal to ally and instead launch a naval competition with Britain.
The Schlieffen Plan will vindicate all those who blame Germany for the outbreak
of the First World War. England entered the war because going by this plan ,
Germany trampled upon Belgian neutrality. Similarly, William II was encouraging
Austria to take stern actions against Serbia. As far as Great Britain is
concerned, impeccable restraint was shown by her; even during the naval
rivalry, Britain tried to diffuse the crisis. The Russians changed their camp
owing to Germany and Austria; although they were in deep internal quagmire; the
aftermaths of the 1905 revolution were in full swing, but still, bolstered by
French and English, they probably wanted the diversionary theory of war to work
for them. It proved a death knell for the Tsar.
Thus, we see that there were marked
differences in attitudes, which were briefly touched-upon above. These
attitudes, especially that of Germany is for me the most imperative cause of
the First World War. The German quest for power compelled her to make
aggressive alliances, use bullying tactics, ameliorate the military and pitch
one against the other. Why does a country embark upon imperialism? To gain
power and preponderance; same goes for armament and alliances. Had Kaiser been
not ambitious, he would have not started the naval race or for that matter
dissuaded Austria from making a mountain of a mole. Clausewitz said that war is an extension of
diplomacy by other means. The German desire for war resulted in alliances and
counter-alliances; Dreadnoughts and more Dreadnoughts. Russia was seething for
war too, only because it felt insecure from German attitude. War mongering led
to stockpiling of weapons, alliances and the conception of hawkish military
strategies. All the above mentioned causes emanate from war hysteria or
fondness for war, for that matter.
Conclusion
No single factor can be ascribed as the
principal cause of the First World War; all powers and their hawkish policies
pitched-in to the tragedy. Having said that, some factors generate other factors. Here, the warlike
attitude of great powers, especially and most certainly, Germany was the most
conspicuous cause of the power. When there is no will to augment power, then
alliances are not made; navy is not built; territories are not captured. Let’s
take arms build-up as a cause. Why would a country add deadly weapons to its cache?
Armament is not done either to start a
war, or to prevent from being taken for a ride in a war. Hence , the desire to
become militarily strong leads to weapon development/acquisition. The first
three causes are hence subservient to the fourth one.
Excellent read.... Keep sharing such ideas...
ReplyDelete